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 6th May 2020, 04:02 PM   #2841
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Just is case someone wants to know, nano-dust grains have a mass of about ~1.E-20 kg, which is a staggering ~1.e7 (10.000.000) times heavier than a proton, and say ~1.e6 times heavier than any of the heavier molecules like water or carbondioxide.

Any charged dust grain in an electric field will thus be accelerated ~1 million times LESS than a water molecule and even ~1 milliard times LESS than an electron.

Not what is observed though is it now, tusenfem?

Would you like to join in the discussion on the dust acceleration during Deep Impact?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 6th May 2020, 04:09 PM   #2842
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
Quote:
So more I'm than happy to agree there is ice at comets but that does not mean comets are mostly ice!
I couldn't care less what you are happy with! You are a scientifically illiterate nonentity! The world of cometary science doesn't give a rat's arse what you think! And nobody has claimed that comets are mostly ice ever since we got a close up look at one ~ 35 years ago.
So, that's the end of that, isn't it? Your woo is falsified, and we all agree that Thornhill lied.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Sol woo.jpg (27.8 KB, 6 views)
__________________
“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; 6th May 2020 at 04:12 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2020, 04:16 PM   #2843
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Not what is observed though is it now, tusenfem?

Would you like to join in the discussion on the dust acceleration during Deep Impact?
WTF has this got to do with your failed woo? How many times? The dust shouldn't be there in your woo. Dust does not explain the complete lack of rock. The complete lack of discharges. The complete lack of EDM (lol). The impossibility of a radial electric field. The impossibility of lightning bolts blasting pieces of planets into space. Et boring cetera.
__________________
“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
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 6th May 2020, 04:44 PM   #2844
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
WTF has this got to do with your failed woo? How many times? The dust shouldn't be there in your woo. Dust does not explain the complete lack of rock. The complete lack of discharges. The complete lack of EDM (lol). The impossibility of a radial electric field. The impossibility of lightning bolts blasting pieces of planets into space. Et boring cetera.
So you keep saying.

Now toddle off and model comets with a consolidated surface.

note, no dust!

__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 6th May 2020, 04:46 PM   #2845
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So you keep saying.

Now toddle off and model comets with a consolidated surface.

note, no dust!

I don't need to model anything. You need to explain why your woo was a total failure.
__________________
“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
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 6th May 2020, 04:47 PM   #2846
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
I couldn't care less what you are happy with! You are a scientifically illiterate nonentity! The world of cometary science doesn't give a rat's arse what you think! And nobody has claimed that comets are mostly ice ever since we got a close up look at one ~ 35 years ago.
So, that's the end of that, isn't it? Your woo is falsified, and we all agree that Thornhill lied.
Where is this 1um ice located within the consolidated surface?

or how is your "ice" released from under a mechanically rocky-type behaviour for the cometary material?

Mainstream has NO model, buttercup!

__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 6th May 2020, 04:51 PM   #2847
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Where is this 1um ice located within the consolidated surface?

or how is your "ice" released from under a mechanically rocky-type behaviour for the cometary material?

Mainstream has NO model, buttercup!

Yes it does, thicko. Now, explain your failed woo, and stop trying to understand things that are beyond your understanding.
__________________
“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
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 6th May 2020, 05:31 PM   #2848
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Please present currently accepted mainstream model.

You cant because there is not one but many! Near-perihelion activity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. A first
attempt of non-static analysis


They ALL fail! bit like you and the prod prod goad tactic.

at least Skorov et al is giving the first attempt of non-static analysis a crack.

You are a complete FAIL!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 6th May 2020, 05:34 PM   #2849
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Quote:
Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces.
Alice Lucchetti1, Luca Penasa2, Maurizio Pajola1, Matteo Massironi3,1,2, Maria Teresa
Brunetti4, Gabriele Cremonese1, Nilda Oklay5, Jean-Baptiste Vincent5, Stefano
Mottola5, Sonia Fornasier6, Holger Sierks7, Giampiero Naletto8,9,2, Philippe L. Lamy10,
Rafael Rodrigo11,12, Detlef Koschny13, Bjorn Davidsson14, Cesare Barbieri15, Maria
Antonietta Barucci6, Jean-Loup Bertaux16 , Ivano Bertini15, Dennis Bodewits17, Pamela
Cambianica2, Vania Da Deppo9 , Stefano Debei18, Mariolino De Cecco19, Jacob Deller7,
Sabrina Ferrari2, Francesca Ferri2, Marco Franceschi3, Marco Fulle17, Pedro
Gutiérrez21, Carsten Güttler7 , Wing-H. Ip22,23, Uwe Keller24,5, Luisa Lara21, Monica
Lazzarin15, Jose Lopez Moreno21, Francesco Marzari8, Cecilia Tubiana7


jonesdave116 says the above are all wrong because Tempel 1 and Hartley 2 all have some ice in the coma!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 6th May 2020, 05:38 PM   #2850
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Simple question jd116, the consolidated surface consists of what?

DUST? ICE? Dust and ice?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 6th May 2020, 05:39 PM   #2851
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Yes it does, thicko. Now, explain your failed woo, and stop trying to understand things that are beyond your understanding.

Comets are rocky objects discharging in the solar wind!



Has not changed, unlike your theories!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 6th May 2020, 06:20 PM   #2852
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Cheers Wal

Quote:
“If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.”
Could not have put it better myself!

Sounds like a few posers here.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 6th May 2020 at 06:21 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 7th May 2020, 12:07 AM   #2853
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,789
Originally Posted by Indagator View Post
*snip*
Time to brush up on your MHD baby because there are no particle-in-cell modules here!
*snip*
NO! You must be WRONG!
Sol88 would NEVER cite and MHD paper, because it is all "kinetic complex dusty plasmas."
__________________
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 7th May 2020, 12:28 AM   #2854
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,789
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
(changed the bold face tags to url tags to the actual paper, because Sol88 is too lazy to do that)

Dear interested reader, I am happy that Sol88 is moving more and more towards the mainstream model of comets. He might not have intended to, but that's what you get when you only read abstracts. Just a little quote from the conclusions of said Skorov et al. paper:

Originally Posted by Skorov et al. (2020)
...
Summarizing the results, we conclude that the steep increase
of the water production rate near perihelion of 67P cannot be
matched by a two-layer model with a static porous dust layer
covering the dust/ice matrix. At the same time, as it was shown
by Attree et al. (2019) the observed effect is well matched by
the hypothesis of a transient activity, i.e. a time-dependent active
fraction, with the active fractions of two regions in the Southern
hemisphere allowed to vary between two values. The ad hoc time
dependent activity variation of the south pole region required to fit
the non-gravitational forces (Attree et al. (2019)) can be explained
by assuming the inert dust layer to be of variable thickness. Thicker
layers are ‘awakened’ when the sun does not set anymore while
the comet approaches southern solstice near its perihelion. Due
to the permanent insolation, the heat wave penetrates to deeper
levels. At the same time the pressure underneath thicker layers
reaches higher values and can finally reach levels that can blow
off the cover. The uncovered areas enlarge the region of normal
activity.
...
Blimey! That's not Gouda! And it is definitely NOT EC (but than basically nothing is).
__________________
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 7th May 2020, 01:51 AM   #2855
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,789
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
blah blah
Dear interested reader.

It is basically hopeless to try and explain anything to Sol88, and that is basically because he does not understand that specific physics terms have actually a specific meaning which is clear for all scientists.

One of those things is the "electron impact ionization." Whenever you are going to read a Rosetta RPC paper, be it by Galand, Edberg, Divin, Deca, etc. you will read about this term. This effect is understood to be that an electron with enough energy collides with a neutral atom, and through the impact an electron from the neutral atom is kicked out.

As an example, for neutral hydrogen the electron would have to have at least 13.6 eV energy to achieve this.

Note that electron impact ionization is not understood to be the same as "surface sputtering," the way Sol88 would like to interprete it.

To go back to the quote from the Divin paper:

Quote:
Understanding the suprathermal electron population is important, since increased fluxes of the latter have been shown to strongly affect also the cometary ionosphere via electron impact ionization (Galand et al. 2016), charge exchange (Wedlund et al. 2017; Heritier et al. 2018), and is thought to affect dust grain charging processes (Gombosi et al. 2015).
Of course, if you just look at the two bold face word groups, you will be tempted to see a connection there. There is! but not like Sol88 wants to make it.

There are supra-thermal electrons, i.e. electrons with a higher energy that the thermal energy of the bulk of the electrons. They have an effect on varioius processes. One is the electron impact ionization, if there are more electrons with enough energy, then this ioniziation can increase.

For the dust charging (Gombosi et al. 2015) the higher energy electrons will interact differently with the dust grains. They could knock out electrons from the dust, but to get an estimate of the true charging, one would have to calculate the current balance to a dust particle, which I will not go into, here.

By the way, as Sol88 seems to like Gombosi, here is another quote from that paper:

Originally Posted by Gombosi et al.(2015)
In addition to Esw, electric fields also emerge on the surface
of the nucleus and could contribute to the acceleration of nanodust
particles (Szeg˝o et al. 2014). Ignoring cometary outgassing,
the effects of surface electric fields can be quickly estimated
to show that their contribution to the energization of negatively
charged nano-dust grains is expected to remain negligible
.
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Bolded to try and help you out.
Well, not sure if it was much help, as the person trying to "help" does not understand the stuff he wants to help with.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2020, 02:40 AM   #2856
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
(changed the bold face tags to url tags to the actual paper, because Sol88 is too lazy to do that)

Dear interested reader, I am happy that Sol88 is moving more and more towards the mainstream model of comets. He might not have intended to, but that's what you get when you only read abstracts. Just a little quote from the conclusions of said Skorov et al. paper:



Blimey! That's not Gouda! And it is definitely NOT EC (but than basically nothing is).
So many free variables you cant make up a solid model, except the dirtysnowball model.

If you're happy to say that Sol88 is moving more and more towards the mainstream model of comets, I'm happy to!

Whats the mainstream model again, tusenfem? I've a memory like a goldfish.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 7th May 2020, 04:43 AM   #2857
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Dear interested reader.

It is basically hopeless to try and explain anything to Sol88, and that is basically because he does not understand that specific physics terms have actually a specific meaning which is clear for all scientists.

One of those things is the "electron impact ionization." Whenever you are going to read a Rosetta RPC paper, be it by Galand, Edberg, Divin, Deca, etc. you will read about this term. This effect is understood to be that an electron with enough energy collides with a neutral atom, and through the impact an electron from the neutral atom is kicked out.

As an example, for neutral hydrogen the electron would have to have at least 13.6 eV energy to achieve this.

Note that electron impact ionization is not understood to be the same as "surface sputtering," the way Sol88 would like to interprete it.

To go back to the quote from the Divin paper:



Of course, if you just look at the two bold face word groups, you will be tempted to see a connection there. There is! but not like Sol88 wants to make it.

There are supra-thermal electrons, i.e. electrons with a higher energy that the thermal energy of the bulk of the electrons. They have an effect on varioius processes. One is the electron impact ionization, if there are more electrons with enough energy, then this ioniziation can increase.

For the dust charging (Gombosi et al. 2015) the higher energy electrons will interact differently with the dust grains. They could knock out electrons from the dust, but to get an estimate of the true charging, one would have to calculate the current balance to a dust particle, which I will not go into, here.

By the way, as Sol88 seems to like Gombosi, here is another quote from that paper:





Well, not sure if it was much help, as the person trying to "help" does not understand the stuff he wants to help with.
For the dust charging (Gombosi et al. 2015) the higher energy electrons will interact differently with the dust grains. They could knock out electrons from the dust, but to get an estimate of the true charging, one would have to calculate the current balance to a dust particle, which I will not go into, here.


Try a charge of 1 C kg−1 for the dust!

Quote:
These facts show that the electrostatic fragmentation of fractal aggregates of Df < 2 is independent of their size and requires a dust charging much larger than occurring in the coma.
Ummmm.... know we know hey tusenfem!

Quote:
Fluffy particles carry always an important amount of charge vs. their mass, so that their motion is significantly affected by electric and magnetic fields, confirming the interpretations of striae in dust tails in terms of charged dust (Notni and Tiersch 1987).
Where are all the electrons coming from tusenfem. Sublimation?


Quote:
so that the bursts of 0.2–20 keV electrons coming from the nucleus (direct dust)
as found by Laakso as well.

145kv potential drop, sounds big, ay!


Cometary Dust

Mass is being removed via charged dust NOT fictitious sublimation.

The ELECTRIC COMET we now have an official mainstream paper with the mechanism jonesdave116 denies!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 7th May 2020, 04:44 AM   #2858
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
(changed the bold face tags to url tags to the actual paper, because Sol88 is too lazy to do that)

Dear interested reader, I am happy that Sol88 is moving more and more towards the mainstream model of comets. He might not have intended to, but that's what you get when you only read abstracts. Just a little quote from the conclusions of said Skorov et al. paper:



Blimey! That's not Gouda! And it is definitely NOT EC (but than basically nothing is).
Which model are you Mr mainstream hanging your hat on A, B or C?

We could then compare models since the dirtysnowball is dead!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 7th May 2020, 07:45 AM   #2859
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,789
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So many free variables you cant make up a solid model, except the dirtysnowball model.
I cannot help that your hero Skorov wrote 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
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 7th May 2020, 11:08 AM   #2860
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
For the dust charging (Gombosi et al. 2015) the higher energy electrons will interact differently with the dust grains. They could knock out electrons from the dust, but to get an estimate of the true charging, one would have to calculate the current balance to a dust particle, which I will not go into, here.


Try a charge of 1 C kg−1 for the dust!

Ummmm.... know we know hey tusenfem!



Where are all the electrons coming from tusenfem. Sublimation?


as found by Laakso as well.

145kv potential drop, sounds big, ay!


Cometary Dust

Mass is being removed via charged dust NOT fictitious sublimation.

The ELECTRIC COMET we now have an official mainstream paper with the mechanism jonesdave116 denies!
No you don't. And none of this has anything to do with your failed woo.
__________________
“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
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 7th May 2020, 11:13 AM   #2861
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Cheers Wal



Could not have put it better myself!

Sounds like a few posers here.
A) Thornhill is a complete idiot, with zero knowledge of any relevant science, and;

B) He and you are the idiots who are denying reality. No solar wind making water woo. We knew that in '86. That clown still thinks it is happening! Plenty of ice blasted out of Tempel 1, and detected at numerous other comets. Still denied. No rock ever detected at a comet. Still denied. No science, no mechanisms and no evidence. And yet here you are. The last idiot on the planet to still believe this crap, other than the two idiots who made it up. Get a life. And then get an education.
__________________
“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
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 7th May 2020, 11:17 AM   #2862
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Please present currently accepted mainstream model.

You cant because there is not one but many! Near-perihelion activity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. A first
attempt of non-static analysis


They ALL fail! bit like you and the prod prod goad tactic.

at least Skorov et al is giving the first attempt of non-static analysis a crack.

You are a complete FAIL!
And none of that supports your failed woo, you clown. Tell us why it is a complete failure. We are all dying to hear. Did Thornie **** up somewhere? Such as not getting a proper education? Not being able to understand scientific papers? Being retarded enough to believe Velikovsky's woo? What was it Sol? Or is it something as simple as the bloke being insane? You aren't related are you?
__________________
“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
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 7th May 2020, 11:50 AM   #2863
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Whats the mainstream model again, tusenfem? I've a memory the intellect like of a goldfish.
FTFY.
__________________
“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
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 7th May 2020, 12:33 PM   #2864
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
I cannot help that your hero Skorov wrote that ...
Ahhh.. my hero!

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. A way out of this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.
Yu. V. Skorov

Tell you what is a plausible physical mechanism though... electron impact ionisation that affects dust grain charging processes! Divin

__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 7th May 2020, 12:34 PM   #2865
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
A) Thornhill is a complete idiot, with zero knowledge of any relevant science, and;

B) He and you are the idiots who are denying reality. No solar wind making water woo. We knew that in '86. That clown still thinks it is happening! Plenty of ice blasted out of Tempel 1, and detected at numerous other comets. Still denied. No rock ever detected at a comet. Still denied. No science, no mechanisms and no evidence. And yet here you are. The last idiot on the planet to still believe this crap, other than the two idiots who made it up. Get a life. And then get an education.

__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 7th May 2020, 01:21 PM   #2866
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
(changed the bold face tags to url tags to the actual paper, because Sol88 is too lazy to do that)

Dear interested reader, I am happy that Sol88 is moving more and more towards the mainstream model of comets. He might not have intended to, but that's what you get when you only read abstracts. Just a little quote from the conclusions of said Skorov et al. paper:



Blimey! That's not Gouda! And it is definitely NOT EC (but than basically nothing is).
What's that tusenfem, my hero is having a crack at the first attempt of non-static analysis.

Why would my hero be so bolds as to do that? Might it just be that widely used thermophysical models based on a static dust layer on top of the icy/refractory matrix are poorly consistent with these observations.

So the dirtysnowball thermophysical model is poorly consistent with these observations.

Really!!!

Anyway to play for awhile in the big sandbox, tusenfem and I know it's waaayyy out of your depth but try and stick with me here, sport!
  1. Model A - The simplest assumption is that exposed water ice sublimates directly from the surface. The ice must be mixed with dust, considering the low albedo of cometary nuclei.
  2. Models B and C - Models B and C differ from Model A in that we take into account explicitly the existence of a porous dust layer on the surface and a heat flux inward due to the thermal conductivity of the material
  3. Model from Blum et al. (2017) The model presented in Blum et al. (2017) takes into account radiation thermal conductivity
  4. Model fromHu et al. (2017) The model presented in Hu et al. (2017) describes non-stationary heat transfer in a two-layer porous medium. This is its main difference from Models B and C, which is built on the assumption that the surface layer is in a quasi-stationary state.
Near-perihelion activity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. A first attempt of non-static analysis Yu. Skorov

Now, the above models have not yet included or incorporated the fact that the surface of comets is in FACT characterised by consolidated surfaces!

Quote:
Landslides on 67P reveal a clear rocky-type behaviour for cometary material that, once collapsed, assumes a rock avalanche mobilization associated to relatively high friction coefficients.
The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko


And it is definitely NOT EC dirtysnowball models listed above (but than basically nothing is)!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 7th May 2020, 01:28 PM   #2867
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
We can safely scrap Model A.

So lets stick with B&C models.

Quote:
Models B and C differ from Model A in that we take into account explicitly the existence of a porous dust layer on the surface and a heat flux inward due to the thermal conductivity of the material

Models B and C differ from Model A in that we take into account explicitly the existence of a porous dust layer on the surface rocky-type consolidated surfaces and a heat flux inward due to the thermal conductivity of the material.

No one has EVER modeled that!

Well, The ELECTRIC COMET (EC) has as comets are MOSTLY ROCK!

So, my hero, should add one more model, the modeling suggested by Jean-Pierre Bibring in Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

Quote:
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.
Definitely not GOUDA mate!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 7th May 2020, 01:48 PM   #2868
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation The usual insane level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009

The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
101 items of pathological lies, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's demented dogma, etc.

Next post: Insane lies about posts and posters.
Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers
Next post: Gibberish.
Next post: Insane lies about comets. Demented questions.
Next post: Insane lies about comets.
Next post: Insane lies about comets. Demented questions.
Next post: Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane lies about posts and posters.
Next post: Insane questions.
Next post: Gibberish.
Next post: Cites an demented delusion and lie from the documented liar and totally insane Wal Thornhill who denies even classical physics such as electromagnetism and conservation of angular momentums !
The total insanity that Wal Thornhill had revealed in a electric universe rant.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers. Insane questions.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane questions.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane delusions about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Persistent insanity of agreeing that Thornhill is a complete idiot, with zero knowledge of any relevant science...He and you are the idiots who are denying reality.
Thornhill is actually totally insane because he has a physics degree ("a degree in physics and electronics at the University of Melbourne, Australia"), believes in an electric universe and is writing delusions about abut the basic electromagnetism and other physics that he must know.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics knows that orbiting charges emit radiation and cease to orbit. This is why atoms cannot have electrons physically orbiting a nucleus. But Thornhill has the delusion of protons and electrons being orbiting charges!
Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics knows that angular momentum (spin) is conserved. But Thornhill has the delusion of neutrons being a spin 1/2 proton and a spin 1/2 electron which cannot add up to a neutron spin of 1/2!
Anyone with a basic knowledge of the real world knows that a proton + an electron is a hydrogen atom, not a neutron!
etc. etc.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
For example A spate of pathological lying about a Skorov, Keller, Mottola, Hartogh (2020) paper
Next post: Total insanity of asking me to continue to document his pathological lies, insane lies about science, posts and posters, insanity of ignoring his demented dogma in a thread about his demented dogma, insane insults of astronomers writing that comets are actual rock, his demented trust in the documented liar and newly self-documented as totally insane Wal Thornhill (denies even electromagnetism !), etc.
The real insanity is that anyone who looks up 'Sol88' and electric comet/Sun should find this thread documenting over 11 years (and counting!) of the thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma and discover that Thunderbolts is a demented cult with obviously deluded followers.
Next post: Stupidity of copy/pasting my post twice.
Next post: A spate of pathological lying about a Skorov, Keller, Mottola, Hartogh (2020) paper.
A pathological "Dusty surface you say?" lie and insane delusion that there is no dust layer on 67P.
Next post: Insane lies about science, posts and posters.
A pathological "Dusty surface you say?" lie and insane delusion that there is no dust layer on 67P.
Next post: Insane questions and gibberish related to A pathological "Dusty surface you say?" lie and insane delusion that there is no dust layer on 67P.

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th May 2020 at 03:11 PM.
Reality Check 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 7th May 2020, 02:06 PM   #2869
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation A spate of pathological lying about a Skorov, Keller, Mottola, Hartogh (2020) paper

A spate of pathological lying about a Skorov, Keller, Mottola, Hartogh (2020) paper.

Near-perihelion activity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. A first attempt of non-static analysis by Yu Skorov, H U Keller, S Mottola, P Hartogh (2020)
Quote:
The observed rate of water production of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko near its perihelion can be approximated by a very steep power function of the heliocentric distance. Widely used thermophysical models based on a static dust layer on top of the icy/refractory matrix are poorly consistent with these observations. We analyse published model results and demonstrate that thermophysical models with a uniform and static ice free layer do not reproduce the observed steep water production rates of 67P near perihelion. Based on transient thermal modeling we conclude that the accelerated gas activity can be explained assuming that the active area fraction near the south pole is increased. The deeper penetration of the heat wave during polar day (no sunset) can activate sublimation through thicker inert dust layers. This can also lead to removal of thicker dust layers and consequently to an expansion of the active area.
This is the mainstream ice and dust comet model.
The authors note that thermophysical models that use a static ice-free dust layer on top of a ice + dust matrix do not give the exponential variation of water production of 67P with distance form the Sun. An increased active area near the south pole does fit the data.

This paper does real science - taking a simple model ("the so-called Model A") that fits some data but not other data and adding more physics to get a better model that fits more data.

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th May 2020 at 02:07 PM.
Reality Check 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 7th May 2020, 02:07 PM   #2870
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Reality check the post maker!

Get those pages counts up, rc.

Are you able to post a few more of these?

Exclamation The usual insane level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
101 items of pathological lies, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's demented dogma, etc.

Next post: Insane lies about posts and posters.
Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers
Next post: Gibberish.
Next post: Insane lies about comets. Demented questions.
Next post: Insane lies about comets.
Next post: Insane lies about comets. Demented questions.
Next post: Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane lies about posts and posters.
Next post: Insane questions.
Next post: Gibberish.
Next post: Cites an demented delusion and lie from the documented liar and totally insane Wal Thornhill who denies even classical physics such as electromagnetism and conservation of angular momentums !
The total insanity that Wal Thornhill had revealed in a electric universe rant.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers. Insane questions.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane questions.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane delusions about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 7th May 2020, 02:18 PM   #2871
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Exclamation The usual insane level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
101 items of pathological lies, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's demented dogma, etc.

Next post: Insane lies about posts and posters.
Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers
Next post: Gibberish.
Next post: Insane lies about comets. Demented questions.
Next post: Insane lies about comets.
Next post: Insane lies about comets. Demented questions.
Next post: Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane lies about posts and posters.
Next post: Insane questions.
Next post: Gibberish.
Next post: Cites an demented delusion and lie from the documented liar and totally insane Wal Thornhill who denies even classical physics such as electromagnetism and conservation of angular momentums !
The total insanity that Wal Thornhill had revealed in a electric universe rant.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers. Insane questions.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane questions.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane delusions about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 7th May 2020, 02:20 PM   #2872
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Exclamation The usual insane level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
101 items of pathological lies, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's demented dogma, etc.

Next post: Insane lies about posts and posters.
Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers
Next post: Gibberish.
Next post: Insane lies about comets. Demented questions.
Next post: Insane lies about comets.
Next post: Insane lies about comets. Demented questions.
Next post: Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane lies about posts and posters.
Next post: Insane questions.
Next post: Gibberish.
Next post: Cites an demented delusion and lie from the documented liar and totally insane Wal Thornhill who denies even classical physics such as electromagnetism and conservation of angular momentums !
The total insanity that Wal Thornhill had revealed in a electric universe rant.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers. Insane questions.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane questions.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane delusions about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.

Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 7th May 2020, 02:22 PM   #2873
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A spate of pathological lying about a Skorov, Keller, Mottola, Hartogh (2020) paper.

Near-perihelion activity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. A first attempt of non-static analysis by Yu Skorov, H U Keller, S Mottola, P Hartogh (2020)

This is the mainstream ice and dust comet model.
The authors note that thermophysical models that use a static ice-free dust layer on top of a ice + dust matrix do not give the exponential variation of water production of 67P with distance form the Sun. An increased active area near the south pole does fit the data.

This paper does real science - taking a simple model ("the so-called Model A") that fits some data but not other data and adding more physics to get a better model that fits more data.
Dusty surface you say?


Quote:
Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces.
Lucchetti


Lucchetti should talk to Yu. V. Skorov
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 7th May 2020, 02:45 PM   #2874
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation A pathological "Dusty surface you say?" lie and insane delusions

A pathological "Dusty surface you say?" lie and insane delusion that there is no dust layer on 67P.

The papers cited in Near-perihelion activity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. A first attempt of non-static analysis by Yu Skorov, H U Keller, S Mottola, P Hartogh (2020) and the paper itself, use a model of the surface of comets as a layer of dust covering a matrix of ice and dust. This is a physical fact for 67P. Philae landed on a surface made of a dust layer covering a matrix of ice and dust !

The Rocky‐Like Behavior of Cometary Landslides on 67P/Churyumov‐Gerasimenko by Lucchetti, et. al. (2019) does not say that the known to exist dust layer on 67P does not exist! It says that landslides on 67P act like consolidated material with different volatile content (ice).

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th May 2020 at 02:47 PM.
Reality Check 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 7th May 2020, 02:53 PM   #2875
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A pathological "Dusty surface you say?" lie and insane delusion that there is no dust layer on 67P.

The papers cited in Near-perihelion activity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. A first attempt of non-static analysis by Yu Skorov, H U Keller, S Mottola, P Hartogh (2020) and the paper itself, use a model of the surface of comets as a layer of dust covering a matrix of ice and dust. This is a physical fact for 67P. Philae landed on a surface made of a dust layer covering a matrix of ice and dust !

The Rocky‐Like Behavior of Cometary Landslides on 67P/Churyumov‐Gerasimenko by Lucchetti, et. al. (2019) does not say that the known to exist dust layer on 67P does not exist! It says that landslides on 67P act like consolidated material with different volatile content (ice).
You make no sense, as usual!

Quote:
Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces.
Not a DUSTY surface but a rocky-type consolidated surfaces!

Like we have also argued over me 'ol mate!

and there it is!

Comets are rocky objects!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 7th May 2020, 03:03 PM   #2876
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Quote:
layer of dust covering a matrix of ice and dust
????



__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 7th May 2020, 03:19 PM   #2877
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces.

Fluffy aggregates = Dust

Consolidated = Rocky like

No fluffies!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 7th May 2020, 04:44 PM   #2878
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation The usual insane level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009

The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
101 items of pathological lies, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's demented dogma, etc.

Insane lies, etc. from the last day or so

Next post: Insane lies about posts and posters.
Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers
Next post: Gibberish.
Next post: Insane lies about comets. Demented questions.
Next post: Insane lies about comets.
Next post: Insane lies about comets. Demented questions.
Next post: Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane lies about posts and posters.
Next post: Insane questions.
Next post: Gibberish.
Next post: Cites an demented delusion and lie from the documented liar and totally insane Wal Thornhill who denies even classical physics such as electromagnetism and conservation of angular momentums !
The total insanity that Wal Thornhill had revealed in a electric universe rant.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers. Insane questions.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane questions.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane delusions about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Persistent insanity of agreeing that Thornhill is a complete idiot, with zero knowledge of any relevant science...He and you are the idiots who are denying reality.
Thornhill is actually totally insane because he has a physics degree ("a degree in physics and electronics at the University of Melbourne, Australia"), believes in an electric universe and is writing delusions about abut the basic electromagnetism and other physics that he must know.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics knows that orbiting charges emit radiation and cease to orbit. This is why atoms cannot have electrons physically orbiting a nucleus. But Thornhill has the delusion of protons and electrons being orbiting charges!
Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics knows that angular momentum (spin) is conserved. But Thornhill has the delusion of neutrons being a spin 1/2 proton and a spin 1/2 electron which cannot add up to a neutron spin of 1/2!
Anyone with a basic knowledge of the real world knows that a proton + an electron is a hydrogen atom, not a neutron!
etc. etc.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
For example A spate of pathological lying about a Skorov, Keller, Mottola, Hartogh (2020) paper
Next post: Total insanity of asking me to continue to document his pathological lies, insane lies about science, posts and posters, insanity of ignoring his demented dogma in a thread about his demented dogma, insane insults of astronomers writing that comets are actual rock, his demented trust in the documented liar and newly self-documented as totally insane Wal Thornhill (denies even electromagnetism !), etc.
The real insanity is that anyone who looks up 'Sol88' and electric comet/Sun should find this thread documenting over 11 years (and counting!) of the thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma and discover that Thunderbolts is a demented cult with obviously deluded followers.
Next post: Stupidity of copy/pasting my post twice.
Next post: A spate of pathological lying about a Skorov, Keller, Mottola, Hartogh (2020) paper.
A pathological "Dusty surface you say?" lie and insane delusion that there is no dust layer on 67P.
Next post: Insane lies about science, posts and posters.
A pathological "Dusty surface you say?" lie and insane delusion that there is no dust layer on 67P.
Next post: Insane questions and gibberish related to A pathological "Dusty surface you say?" lie and insane delusion that there is no dust layer on 67P.

Continues
Next post: A pathological "Dusty surface you say?" lie and insane delusion that there is no dust layer on 67P.
Next post: Pathological "Post count post count post count" lie and insanity.
Next post: Insane "Mainstream have no consensus... after all this time and $$$" lie.
Next post: A pathological "Dusty surface you say?" lie and insane delusion that there is no dust layer on 67P.

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th May 2020 at 06:22 PM.
Reality Check 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 7th May 2020, 05:17 PM   #2879
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
I'll help you out, again reality check!

Quote:
Exclamation The usual insane level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
101 items of pathological lies, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's demented dogma, etc.

Next post: Insane lies about posts and posters.
Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers
Next post: Gibberish.
Next post: Insane lies about comets. Demented questions.
Next post: Insane lies about comets.
Next post: Insane lies about comets. Demented questions.
Next post: Insanity of mainstream ice and dust comet papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane lies about posts and posters.
Next post: Insane questions.
Next post: Gibberish.
Next post: Cites an demented delusion and lie from the documented liar and totally insane Wal Thornhill who denies even classical physics such as electromagnetism and conservation of angular momentums !
The total insanity that Wal Thornhill had revealed in a electric universe rant.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers. Insane questions.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane questions.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane delusions about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.

Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Insane lies about mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
__________________

Insane lies
Insane lies
More and more Insane lies

Nothing but Insane lies piled upon Insane lies
Post count post count post count

Cheers!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 7th May 2020, 05:48 PM   #2880
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Dust-to-Gas and Refractory-to-Ice Mass Ratios of Comet67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko from RosettaObservations

Global-scale brittle plastic rheology at thecometesimals merging of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko





Mainstream have no consensus... after all this time and $$$.

Quote:
However, it appears difficult to place firm lower or upper limits on the refractory-to-ice mass ratio. Opposing views are expressed to date on this topic within the community.Some argue that the data and analyses presently available have reached the level of maturity necessary to draw conclusions, while others caution that the numerous sources of uncertainties associated to the derivation of the refractory-to-ice mass ratio (retrievals, activity scenario, extent and composition of fallback materials, along with putative heterogeneities in composition within the nucleus and variability in comet activity through time) may not be understood and quantified well enough yet to support such conclusions

Very difficult!



Except for the ELECTRIC COMET!

Sorry reality check.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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
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 09:24 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.