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 8th May 2020, 06:15 AM   #2921
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
And yet more rablings. Nano grains cannot be dust, or what are you talking about here?
I am just talking about grains which can have a larger that +1 or -1 e charge and that needs to be taken along in any kinematics of said grains. And it matters nothing whether these nano grains are made of (water)ice or dust.


Well, not sure what you are implying here, the electrons get an energy of 50 to 70 eV and what is your point?

"Why stop at nana grains champ??"

Yes, why stop at nana grains, when you can work with nano grains?

So, basically, you're not talking, you are just confablulating.

Nah, like nana grains now you call them that, kinda homely.


Quote:
The fluffy dust particles detected by GIADA (Fulle et al. 2015), which have the equivalent bulk density of air (<1 k gm-3) and sizes up to a few mm, provide one of the most stringent constraints selecting the working model of 67P’s origin.

According to Fulle et al. (2015), the fluffy aggregates are charged by the secondary electron flux from Rosetta, and then fragmented and decelerated by the electrostatic interaction between the fragments and Rosetta, down to speeds of a few cm s-1. At these speeds, the fragments provide exactly the kinetic energy ranging from 0.2 to 20 keV of some electron bursts observed by the RPC/IES experiment (Burch et al. 2015), and interpreted in terms of nm-sized dust (Gombosi, Burch & Horanyi 2015).
Marco Fulle

Well, Fulle can now add a field aligned ambipolar electric field too!

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).
__________________
“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 8th May 2020, 06:18 AM   #2922
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Aussies must have a weird sense of humour.
Saving washing water!
__________________
“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 8th May 2020, 06:24 AM   #2923
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
As a weekend present, two quotes from Skorov (whose paper mentiones 'sublimation' 20 times):
Gotta mention sublimation after his last dismal effort!

You may have read the whole paper?

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

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

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

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

Conclusions. In the framework of the presented model, which can be considered common in terms of assumptions and physical
parameters in the cometary community, the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism. The sublimation
of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding
to 1.3 AU. A way out of this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko Yu. V. Skorov

Impasse?? Like in the 'ol west

Unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding to 1.3 AU are they talking the same CHARGED DUST we are, tusenfem?

thermophysical models the same failed ones?
Quote:
7 THERMO-PHYSICAL MODELS FAIL
Fulle et al I noticed MODELS, plural too.
__________________
“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; 8th May 2020 at 06:40 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 11:40 AM   #2924
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Gotta mention sublimation after his last dismal effort!

You may have read the whole paper?



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

Impasse?? Like in the 'ol west

Unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding to 1.3 AU are they talking the same CHARGED DUST we are, tusenfem?

thermophysical models the same failed ones? Fulle et al I noticed MODELS, plural too.
None of which has anything to do with your failed woo. Deal with your failed woo. If you want to know what Skorov now thinks,
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
email him.
__________________
“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 zooterkin; 11th May 2020 at 03:34 AM.
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 8th May 2020, 08:50 PM   #2925
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation An [snip] "'Cos it's ********" lie about the detection of 5 million kgs of water

An [snip] "'Cos it's ********" lie about the detection of 5 million kgs of water in the Deep Impact ejecta.

Sol88 is spewing out insane lies that show he has never read or even looked for the 2006 paper with the above detection.

For others:
The published scientific paper announcing the detection of millions of kgs of water in the Deep Impact ejecta takes a few minutes to find.
Swift X-Ray Telescope Observations of the Deep Impact Collision by Willingale, et. al. (2006).
Quote:
The radial brightness distribution and X-ray spectrum are in excellent agreement with a model of X-ray production in which highly charged minor heavy ion species in the solar wind undergo charge exchange reactions with water group or carbon dioxide group molecules in the neutral coma of the comet. ... Assuming that the main outgassing constituent was water, the comet produced (2.9+/-0.4)×108 kg over the 12 day period postimpact. The quiescent water production was expected to inject ~1.0×108 kg into the coma over the same period so the observed X-ray flux indicates that an additional (1.9+/-0.4)×108 kg of water or, alternatively, (3.9+/-0.5)×108 kg of carbon dioxide were liberated by the DI impact.
This is astronomers being scientifically honest. Their model of X-ray activity fit the Deep Impact data with either water group or carbon dioxide group molecules. So they list water and CO2 results. Either way Sol88's demented dogma is still insane. Deep impact ejected 2 million kgs of water from water ice on the nucleus or ejected the equivalent in CO2 from CO2 ice on the nucleus.

Swift ultraviolet photometry of the Deep Impact encounter with Comet 9P/Tempel 1 by Mason, et. al. (2007) says 1.4 x 10^32 water molecules were ejected in the impact. A water molecule weighs 2.992 x 10^-23 grams. That is 4.2 million kilograms of water.

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove rule 10 and rule 12 breaches

Last edited by Agatha; 23rd May 2020 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 8th May 2020, 09:24 PM   #2926
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation A pathological "So, no acceleration, tusenfem?" lie even with a :rolleyes:

A pathological "So, no acceleration, tusenfem?" lie even with a

tusenfem wrote: 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..
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 8th May 2020, 09:28 PM   #2927
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation A pathological "Problem is there is and it's substantial, apparently!?" lie

A pathological "Problem is there is and it's substantial, apparently!?" lie about tusenfem's post.

tusenfem wrote: 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..
This is basic physics about the relative acceleration of dust grains and electrons. It is not the complex physics of electrons being accelerated in high speeds (superthermal electrons) as measured in the coma of 67P.

Followed by complete gibberish and a pathological lie!
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 8th May 2020, 09:40 PM   #2928
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation A pathological "Dusty PLASMA the Universe is full of the stuff, ..." lie

A pathological "Dusty PLASMA the Universe is full of the stuff, almost likes it's the FUNDAMENTAL state of matter!" lie.

Dusty plasma is rare in the universe. Obviously dusty plasma needs dust. Dust is common around comets and in stellar systems, less common between stars and basically non-existent outside of galaxies. Dust + plasma need not = dusty plasma. Solids are an infinitesimal part of the universe.
Most of the plasma in the universe is not dusty plasma as anyone interested in cosmology and who can read knows. The intracluster medium is "consists mainly of ionized hydrogen and helium and accounts for most of the baryonic material in galaxy clusters".
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 8th May 2020, 09:53 PM   #2929
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation Gibberish about tusenfem's "nano dust grains to be accelerated..." post

Gibberish about tusenfem's "nano dust grains to be accelerated to 10 km/s or so" post.

tusenfem first pointed out A pathological "So, no acceleration, tusenfem?" lie even with a and then wrote an ETA.
ETA: and of course, yes, when there is a significant electric field over a significantly long distance, then dust can be (slowly) accelerated. If I am not mistaken, calculations have shown that it would be possible for nano dust grains to be accelerated to 10 km/s or so.

Sol88 replies with stupidity that the ETA is about electrons, gibberish and his DL at comets insanity.

Last edited by Reality Check; 8th May 2020 at 09:54 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 8th May 2020, 10:00 PM   #2930
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation Insanity about "... accreted by the gentle gravitational collapse..."

Insanity about "This upper limit of the collision speeds confirms that comets were accreted by the gentle gravitational collapse of a cloud of cm sized pebbles"

Without his demented highlighting :
Quote:
Fluffy particles contribute to .15 per cent of the total non-volatile volume, but to a negligible fraction of the ejected mass (<1 ccID="152" per cent). These facts suggest that they represent the primitive proto-solar component, having survived during the initial accretion of 67P in the voids among the pebbles, thus excluding impact speeds larger than 1 m s.1 during the whole 67P accretion history (GNuttler et al. 2010).

This upper limit of the collision speeds confirms that comets were accreted by the gentle gravitational collapse of a cloud of cm sized pebbles

(consistent with the compact particles observed by GIADA), confined in a Hill sphere by the flow instabilities at the end of the proto-planetary nebula gas phase (Wahlberg Jansson & Johansen 2014).
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

This is easily understood mainstream ice and dust cometary science. Comets formed by accretion in the early solar system. The existence of fluffy particles on the nucleus gives an upper limit of the collision speeds confirming a "gentle gravitational collapse".

His post is insane because it irrelevant to his demented dogma.

Last edited by Reality Check; 8th May 2020 at 10:06 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 8th May 2020, 10:21 PM   #2931
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation [snip]"Gotta mention sublimation after his last dismal effort!" lie and insult

[snip] "Gotta mention sublimation after his last dismal effort!" lie and insult of Skorov.

Any scientific paper on comets will mention sublimation when appropriate because it is a physical fact that the observed ices at comets must sublimate when they are heated by approaching the Sun.
An [snip] "his last dismal effort" insult of Skorov, especially when it was Sol88 who began citing Skorov and cites him again !

[snip] that the 2016 paper was only written by Skorov:
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Yu. V. Skorov, L. Rezac, P. Hartogh and H. U. Keller (2016).
An [snip] lie that tusenfem quoted from the 2016 paper when "Skorov et al. (2020)" is clearly stated.

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove rule 12 breaches

Last edited by Agatha; 23rd May 2020 at 01:36 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 9th May 2020, 03:23 AM   #2932
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

You know, just say'n!

Nope, nothing even close to rock ever detected at a comet.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
__________________
“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 zooterkin; 11th May 2020 at 03:34 AM.
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 12th May 2020, 01:31 PM   #2933
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Dear interested reader, it always comes back to the same thing, doesn't it? Comprehensive reading is a difficult thing, and when one cannot do that, then one writes nonsense, in this case "no acceleration".

A charged particle (charge q) in an electric field (E) will feel a force F = q E, not so difficult. And then we take Newton's Laws of Motion, to be specific: the second law, non-relativistically written as F = m a, where F is the force on a particle with mass m and that results into an acceleration a. So we can calculate the accelertion which a charged particle gets, when we combine the two equations

q E = F = m a --> a = q E / m

so, a particle 1 million times heavier than a proton will get an acceleration 1 million times less. (I do hope that Sol88 can follow the math so far, it IS rather complicated).

So, I have never said "no acceleration", and when we bring into play that water is usually only 1+ charged, we know that a nana grain can have a bigger charge up to tens e, so we should take that into account.

Well, that is enough mathemagics from me for today, but I doubt any interested reader is flabbergasted by this Newtonian result.

ETA: and of course, yes, when there is a significant electric field over a significantly long distance, then dust can be (slowly) accelerated. If I am not mistaken, calculations have shown that it would be possible for nano dust grains to be accelerated to 10 km/s or so.

A more interesting thought experiment would be the charge Rosetta possesses in relation to the charged nucleus and these electric fields and if any interaction would be measurable...

If the charged dust is responding to the various electric fields including actually being charged via the mechanism proposed by Divin along with its interaction with Rosetta itself, I think there is a mechanism worth a doing a bit of elaborating on...tusenfem?

The dust constitutes mass and is being removed from the nucleus.

Sublimation or electrostatics?

Talking mass... 6.4x 1013 Sounds about right for a rock the volume of 67P.

__________________
“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; 12th May 2020 at 01:32 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 12th May 2020, 01:47 PM   #2934
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation A pathological delusion of a "6.4x 10^13" mass pulled of 67P

A pathological delusion of a "6.4x 1013" mass of 67P.

The measured mass of 67P is 9.982±0.003)×1012 kg which gives it a density of 0.533 ± 0.006 g/cc. This agrees roughly with its mass measured before Rosetta and the discovery of its actual shape
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 12th May 2020, 01:48 PM   #2935
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation The usual [snip] level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009

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

Next post: Gibberish about a "thought experiment" which is actually a delusion.
There is no evidence that the nucleus of 67P was charged wrt the Rosetta spacecraft. He knows that in order to have his insanity of 67P being a rock which is debunked by the mass measured from the RSI data + the volume of 67P, any charge would have to be so enormous that its effect would be obvious - a 35 GeV voltage that accelerates the solar wind ions.

A pathological delusion of a "6.4x 1013" mass of 67P.

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove rule 12 breaches

Last edited by Agatha; 23rd May 2020 at 01:38 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 12th May 2020, 03:43 PM   #2936
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
A more interesting thought experiment would be the charge Rosetta possesses in relation to the charged nucleus and these electric fields and if any interaction would be measurable...

If the charged dust is responding to the various electric fields including actually being charged via the mechanism proposed by Divin along with its interaction with Rosetta itself, I think there is a mechanism worth a doing a bit of elaborating on...tusenfem?

The dust constitutes mass and is being removed from the nucleus.

Sublimation or electrostatics?

Talking mass... 6.4x 1013 Sounds about right for a rock the volume of 67P.

Except that it is not rock. which is a lie you keep telling. And the Divin, Deca et al papers only apply to when the comet is at large heliocentric distances. So fail, basically. Your woo died decades ago. Try to get over it.
__________________
“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 12th May 2020, 11:49 PM   #2937
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,789
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
A more interesting thought experiment would be the charge Rosetta possesses in relation to the charged nucleus and these electric fields and if any interaction would be measurable...
One should know the spacecraft potential by now, it is in many a paper.
__________________
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 13th May 2020, 01:26 AM   #2938
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
One should know the spacecraft potential by now, it is in many a paper.
iirc, as much as -20V to a few V +.
__________________
“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 15th May 2020, 09:17 PM   #2939
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
From the chief loon in charge of the SAFIRE project, Monty Childs;

"I couldn't understand why the Sun emitted so few gamma rays, given that it was supposed to be this giant nuclear furnace."
Or words to that effect. I mean seriously? This guy has got to be as nutty as the loons who were paying him! Deary me.

https://www.everythingselectric.com/safire-project/

Third video down. Also in the text.
__________________
“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 17th May 2020, 02:58 PM   #2940
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
From the chief loon in charge of the SAFIRE project, Monty Childs;

"I couldn't understand why the Sun emitted so few gamma rays, given that it was supposed to be this giant nuclear furnace."
That is insanely ignorant of Monty Childs which is not a surprise for an electric universe supporter.
Everyone knows that it is the core of the Sun that is the 'giant nuclear furnace' and there is about 556,000 kilometers of plasma for photons to traverse to the photosphere. The gamma rays from the core fusion do not get to us because they are absorbed and reemitted as lower energy photons by that plasma. What we do detect are bursts of gamma rays from solar flares.
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 17th May 2020, 03:15 PM   #2941
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
That everything electric article emphasizes the fundamental insanity SAFIRE with "The core of SAFIRE is cooler than its surrounding atmosphere.". Any first years astronomy student knows that to hold up the increasing weight' as depth increases, temperature and pressure have to increase.
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf

An insane "...we do not belong to the EU community." lie. They presented at EU conferences. They were "testing" a deluded EU electric Sun and now have what looks like a cold fusion delusion or scam. Then there is "Basing their physical experiments on ideas of those involved with the Thunderbolts Electric Universe theory and other EU theory proponents (Wallace Thornhill, Donald E Scott, David Talbott etc)."

"Monty carried out statistical analysis of the Electric Universe theory for Electric Star...The initial result was that a simple EU process could power the billions of stars in the universe" insanity. I highlighted his insanity that a statistical analysis would produce a physical "EU process".
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 18th May 2020, 12:02 AM   #2942
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Quote:
Any first years astronomy student knows that to hold up the increasing weight' as depth increases, temperature and pressure have to increase.
So they say!



Plasma/Gas it's all the same...
__________________
“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 18th May 2020, 12:14 AM   #2943
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
One should know the spacecraft potential by now, it is in many a paper.
We also now know that the dust (which has a non negligible mass) is charged and being deflected by Rosetta.

There must therefore be a exchange of momentum.

This idea is not new and is being investigated as a means to deflect asteroids on potential orbits that could impact Earth.

What are your thoughts, tusenfem, on the prospect of the nucleus carrying a charge?
__________________
“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 18th May 2020, 08:04 AM   #2944
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
We also now know that the dust (which has a non negligible mass) is charged and being deflected by Rosetta.

There must therefore be a exchange of momentum.

This idea is not new and is being investigated as a means to deflect asteroids on potential orbits that could impact Earth.

What are your thoughts, tusenfem, on the prospect of the nucleus carrying a charge?
According to your woo, there shouldn't be any dust. And what charge did Philae detect? How is it getting charged at high activity levels, other than from the photoelectric effect? And why would it have the slightest relevance to 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 18th May 2020, 02:17 PM   #2945
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation [snip] lies about textbook physics that high school students can understand

[snip] "Plasma/Gas it's all the same..." lie about textbook physics that high school students can understand.

Plasma acts as neutral gas on scales above the Debye length which is much less then a meter for the Sun (10-11 meters at the core!). So whe we look at the many thousands of kilometers of the entire Sun we can treat is as gas. Thus:
That everything electric article emphasizes the fundamental insanity SAFIRE with "The core of SAFIRE is cooler than its surrounding atmosphere.". Any first years astronomy student knows that to hold up the increasing weight' as depth increases, temperature and pressure have to increase.
And we have:
Sol88's lies about the demented SAFIRE experiment about the Sun and a scientific experiment about the solar wind and Parker spiral
Yet more propaganda from the Thunderbolts cult on the insane SAFIRE project.
That conversation with Monty exposed that the already insane SAFIRE project is even more insane than collapsing the Sun to a white dwarf

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove rule 12 breaches

Last edited by Agatha; 23rd May 2020 at 01:33 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 01:24 AM   #2946
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,789
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What are your thoughts, tusenfem, on the prospect of the nucleus carrying a charge?
Why do you keep asking me questions, when you don't care about what I say?
__________________
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 19th May 2020, 04:44 AM   #2947
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Deputy Admin
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13,440
Mod WarningWill you all please stop referring to your interlocutors as insane or delusional, even obliquely. Do not use sophistry to try to hint that other posters are insane, delusional or otherwise mentally ill. This includes (but is not limited to) the term "pathological".

Further uses of these or similar terms in this or any other thread will result in more cards and possible suspensions. This is not the mod team's preferred outcome, so please make efforts to change your posting styles. Thank you.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 12:33 PM   #2948
Indagator
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 93
Sol88, I would really love to help you in your mythical quest! However, before that can happen, there are a few problems that need your 'expert' attention!

First, I would like to offer you a short collection of random, rambling philosophical thoughts collected over the last several days! ---

Tell me, Sol88, are we beginning to see cracks in your precious 'electric comedy' RELIGION? I do believe we are! Valid scientific questions remain unanswered! There are NO 'electric comet scientists' digging through the archived databases! NO peer-reviewed papers! NO laboratory analogues! NO mathematical treatments based on first principles! NOTHING! WHY? The criminals at ThunderButts can't afford to stop the gravy train! They can't afford to have their lies exposed! They can't afford to alienate their financial base! NO! They need a flock fit for fleecing! They need blind, obedient servants willing to buy their CRAP and spread 'eu' lies without question! They're constantly telling you, "The big 'electric universe' breakthrough is just around the corner!" Right? "... just around the corner!" And year after year you keep propping up this criminal enterprise by buying their unsubstantiated religious lies! Would it surprise you, Sol88, that SATIRE is really nothing more than a putrid carrot on a broken stick?

Just curious, Sol88, how much money have you wasted buying paywalled papers in the hopes that you'll, one day, find support for your broken religion? I think it hysterically funny that you look to mainstream science for confirmation that your religion is valid, whilst SH-TING on the very people you hope might help! That is truly pathetic! And a guaranteed recipe for FAILURE!

So, here's the real world, big-picture 'eu/es/ec' dilemma ...

WHY WOULD ANY SCIENTIST WANT TO WASTE VALUABLE LIMITED RESOURCES PURSUING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE?

Regardless of what you think, Sol88, plasma is a GAS! Magnetic reconnection is real! And MHD remains an important tool in the toolkit! As a scientist, I need to see utility in the things I investigate! To date, I see nothing of value in your inconsequential myth-based world view! To make matters worse, by ignoring my questions, and those of others on this forum, you've done NOTHING to convince any of us! That, Sol88, is FAILURE, plan and simple!

SCIENCE easily proves your 'electric comet' is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

Problem is, Sol88, because of religious conviction, you refuse to face this inconvenient truth! NO, you do the only thing you can do, you crawl back under your rock to HIDE! You see, you can't prove that the 'electric comet' is physically possible! NO ONE CAN! Proof requires physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, mathematics, evidence! Sadly, your 'eu science' is based on nothing more than, Hey! That looks like a BUNNY! Prove me wrong! What RPC data does the 'eu/ec' community use to prove electric discharges are occurring at 67P? What Rosetta data can be used to show thermodynamic signatures of electric discharges? What discharge signatures are visible in FFP-Vis_Orange OSIRIS images? "OH! Look over there! It's a pretty BUNNY!"

Do you know how adiabatic cooling affects an expanding neutral gas? Or a plasma? Are you familiar with the term enthalpy? NO? Basic physics is beyond you!

Remember, Sol88, this is your 'electric comet' thread. If you're going to post here, it's up to you to prove your claims using the requisite science! I'm not here to discuss the sublimation model, I know how that works! I'm here to discuss 'electric comet' fire-breathing, mythical dragons! That kind o' POooOP would be awesomely awesome and way toooo cooool! So, get busy! Please, tell us about your 'electric comet' dragons!

Sol88, there's a reason the 'electric comet' fears peer-review! The 'electric comet' is NOT SCIENCE! The 'electric comet' is nothing more than an inconsequential RELIGION devoid of hope for a pleasant afterlife! The 'electric comet' will always FAIL! Time to face FACTS! Or NOT!

Sol88, one of us has wasted their life tilting at fictional windmills! Guess who?

If it was not obvious, Sol88, I would love to help you! But only when you're ready! And there are conditions! Until then, I will LAUGH! LOUDLY!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Indagator 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 19th May 2020, 04:21 PM   #2949
Indagator
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 93
Sol88!

Come out from under your rock and share a LAUGH with the Indagator!

Remember, Sol88! The internet NEVER forgets!

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Decca’s paper was a boon for the Electric comet, ....

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Comets are not snowyicydirtballs.

Originally Posted by Deca et al (2017)
Cometary nuclei are small, irregularly shaped "icy dirt balls" left over from the dawn of our Solar System 4.6 billion years ago and are composed of a mixture of ices, refractory materials, and large organic molecules. When a comet is sufficiently close to the Sun, the sublimation of ice leads to an outgassing atmosphere and the formation of a coma, and a dust and plasma tail.

Deca and Divin, say, "Cometary nuclei are small, irregularly shaped "icy dirt balls" left over from the dawn of our Solar System 4.6 billion years ago ..."

What does your 'eu/es/ec' bible say is SOP for dealing with FAILURES ... like this?

According to YOUR logic, Sol88, YOUR 'electric comet' requires "icy dirt balls" left over from the dawn of our Solar System 4.6 billion years ago ...!"

Progress? Sublimation AND accretion?

Perhaps Deca et al (2017) was NOT the bone you were looking for!

Sol88, how is the sublimation of an "icy dirt ball" good for you and your 'electric comedy' dragon?

I would honestly like to understand this 'electric comedy' you NEVER speak of!

Sol88, the laughter only grows louder when you ignore this, and the thousand other PATHETIC 'electric comet' FAILURES littering this thread!

FYI, this glaring ERROR will now live forever on the internet! Are you happy with that FACT? I am!

Everyone will now watch you crawl back under your rock to HIDE from inconvenient truths!

FACT! I will continue to remind you of this ERROR until you deal with it! What's your plan, Sol88? There is NO ignore button here at the ISF!

Have a great day! Mkay!

Last edited by Indagator; 19th May 2020 at 04:39 PM.
Indagator 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 19th May 2020, 07:37 PM   #2950
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Cheers for the giggle Indagator!

Needed that

Your obliviously a gas and gravity man, so...plasma is a GAS! Magnetic reconnection is real! And MHD remains an important tool in the toolkit cant really help you there champ.
__________________
“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 19th May 2020, 07:47 PM   #2951
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Why do you keep asking me questions, when you don't care about what I say?
When asked the hard questions you tend to not respond anyway, till it's buried many posts back.

For instance, what implications, for the dirtyicysnowyball (or whatever model the mainstream are using) when we do finally understand the suprathermal electrons charging the dust?




Quote:
One of the surprising findings of the Rosetta mission is the presence of suprathermal electrons in the close cometary plasma environment with energies up to about 100 eV. The population was present already during the weakly outgassing phases of 67P’s orbit around the Sun (Clark et al. 2015).

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).
Divin


I'm a dumb***, so you tell me, as the expert on plasma here, why is this important?

Hope not
to hear crickets come back...again.
__________________
“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 Agatha; 20th May 2020 at 03:57 PM. Reason: evading the autocensor
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 19th May 2020, 08:00 PM   #2952
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation Usual irrelevant "Plasma is a gas", etc. lies

This has been explained to him many times over the last almost 11 years.
For others:
  • Plasma is a partially ionized gas. Plasma is only neutral gas on scales above the Debye length (quasi-neutral).
  • Magnetic reconnection is real, is observed in the real universe and is studied in experiments.
    It is easily understood to exist. Look at the definition of magnetic field lines. Note that they are undefined when there is no magnetic field. The magnetic field between two parallel wires has a null line where there is no magnetic field. Move the wires apart. Magnetic field lines will move across the null line. They will not exist (break) at the null line and reconnect at the other side.
  • Magnetohydrodynamics is fundamental, working plasma physics.
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 19th May 2020, 08:16 PM   #2954
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
This has been explained to him many times over the last almost 11 years.
For others:
  • Plasma is a partially ionized gas. Plasma is only neutral gas on scales above the Debye length (quasi-neutral).
  • Magnetic reconnection is real, is observed in the real universe and is studied in experiments.
    It is easily understood to exist. Look at the definition of magnetic field lines. Note that they are undefined when there is no magnetic field. The magnetic field between two parallel wires has a null line where there is no magnetic field. Move the wires apart. Magnetic field lines will move across the null line. They will not exist (break) at the null line and reconnect at the other side.
  • Magnetohydrodynamics is fundamental, working plasma physics.
Does plasma have any special properties separate from gas, 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
Old 19th May 2020, 08:39 PM   #2955
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,122
Exclamation A lying question about the properties of plasma

The properties of plasma has been cited to him and explained to him many times over the last almost 11 years.
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 19th May 2020, 09:48 PM   #2956
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
^^

Quote:
One of the surprising findings of the Rosetta mission is the
presence of suprathermal electrons in the close cometary
plasma environment with energies up to about 100 eV. The
population was present already during the weakly outgassing
phases of 67P’s orbit around the Sun (Clark et al. 2015).
Understanding the suprathermal electron population is
important, since increased fluxes of the latter have been shown
to strongly affect also the cometary ionosphere via electronimpact
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).
Divin

A gas or a plasma, 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
Old 19th May 2020, 11:27 PM   #2957
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,789
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I'm a dumb arse, so you tell me, as the expert on plasma here, why is this important?
[i]
Really?

Originally Posted by Divin
... 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).
__________________
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 19th May 2020, 11:34 PM   #2958
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,930
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Really?
Why do YOU think it is important, tusenfem?

More than willing to listen to what you have to say, I don't have to agree, so... I'm (we) are all ears!


__________________
“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; 19th May 2020 at 11:41 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 19th May 2020, 11:35 PM   #2959
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
For instance, what implications, for the dirtyicysnowyball (or whatever model the mainstream are using) when we do finally understand the suprathermal electrons charging the dust?
No implications whatsoever for your failed woo, which is scientifically impossible gibberish. And dust should not be there according to the idiot-in-chief of your cult. Next.




Quote:


I'm a dumb ***,
You finally got something right.
__________________
“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 Agatha; 20th May 2020 at 03:58 PM. Reason: evading autocensor in quote
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 19th May 2020, 11:37 PM   #2960
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,871
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Why do YOU think it is important, tusenfem?

More than willing to listen to what you have to say, so... I'm all ears!

No you are not interested. You believe in scientifically impossible woo. You claimed you'd admit you were wrong when ice was shown to exist. 15 years after a shed load was excavated at Tempel 1, you are still in denial, and prattling on about stuff you don't understand.
__________________
“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
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 10:30 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.