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 19th May 2020, 11:41 PM   #2961
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,855
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
^^

Divin

A gas or a plasma, reality check?
A complete irrelevance to your failed woo. You need interplanetary lightning bolts to form comets. You need terrestrial rock. You need electric discharge woo. You need EDM (lol). You need a radial electric field that does not, and cannot exist.
Come back to us when you've actually got something that makes scientific sense to anybody older than 10 years old. My experience tells me that won't happen. Which makes sense, as only the terminally scientifically illiterate could have fallen for this fairy tale in the first place.
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 01:00 AM   #2962
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
As tusenfems agrees
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).
Divin


The ELECTRIC COMET


Mainstream don't understand?

Ice? As if in dirtysnowballs?

Gunna be some fun!
__________________
“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; 20th May 2020 at 01:03 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 20th May 2020, 01:07 AM   #2963
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
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.






You finally got something right.
Quote:
Understanding the suprathermal electron population is important,...
Why would be import to understand them then, jonesdave116?
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 01:25 AM   #2964
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Really?
Best you can do, tusenfem?

I asked why do YOU think it's important? As per
Quote:
Understanding the suprathermal electron population is important, ...
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 20th May 2020, 02:14 AM   #2965
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
In the context of
Quote:
... dust grain charging processes (Gombosi et al. 2015).
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 20th May 2020, 02:18 AM   #2966
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,855
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Why would be import to understand them then, jonesdave116?
You tell me. What has this got to do with the complete lack of rock, the complete lack of discharges and the complete lack of EDM (lol)? Spell it out. Gombosi's dust is water clusters. Water shouldn't be there according to your woo. Dust shouldn't be there, according to your woo. Why should anybody waste any time explaining things to you when you are not interested in the answers due to them contradicting your scientifically impossible religion? Go troll somewhere else.
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 02:39 AM   #2967
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
You tell me. What has this got to do with the complete lack of rock, the complete lack of discharges and the complete lack of EDM (lol)? Spell it out. Gombosi's dust is water clusters. Water shouldn't be there according to your woo. Dust shouldn't be there, according to your woo. Why should anybody waste any time explaining things to you when you are not interested in the answers due to them contradicting your scientifically impossible religion? Go troll somewhere else.
So you can’t or won’t answer the question, jonesdave116?

It’s ok, don’t expect one from tusenfem either.

Water clusters in the dust???

Ummm....
Quote:
5 NO DISTRIBUTED WATER SOURCES
Marco Fulle

__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 02:40 AM   #2968
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
Maybe Indagator may know why it’s import to understand?


Seems like a clever cookie...
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 02:42 AM   #2969
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,855
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So you can’t or won’t answer the question, jonesdave116?

It’s ok, don’t expect one from tusenfem either.

Water clusters in the dust???

Ummm.... Marco Fulle

Wrong. Just go troll somewhere else. You are a waste of time. Anybody that believes the crap you do is not worthy of our time.
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 03:54 AM   #2970
Indagator
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Cheers for the giggle Indagator!

The LAUGHTER only grows LOUDER, Sol88!

The internet is watching you deliberately FAIL to address a significant PROBLEM with your 'electric comet' myth!

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, Divin, Henri, 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, ....

It appears Deca and Divin disagree with you, Sol88!

According to Deca and Divin, comets are, in FACT, "icy dirt balls" ... composed of a mixture of ices, ...!

Sol88, you really have NO idea what an 'electric comet' is, do you?

You have NO idea how the plasma interactions, described by Deca et al, are produced, do you?

You have NO idea why an 'electric comet' is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, do YOU?

In order to use any conclusions drawn by Deca and Divin, you must accept, at a minimum, that cometary nuclei are "icy dirt balls" subject to sublimation!

This is the first question you MUST ANSWER!

Are "icy dirt balls" acceptable as a foundation for your 'electric comet' myth?

Your answer?

Because the internet NEVER forgets, Sol88, this EPIC FAILURE will always be a part of your legacy here at the ISF!!!

Furthermore, this EPIC FAILURE will NEVER go away until you've dealt with its implications!

Do you have the courage to address this issue? Do you have the courage to admit you've made a mistake?

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

Look in the mirror, Sol88! What do you see?
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 20th May 2020, 04:26 AM   #2971
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
Quote:
You have NO idea why an 'electric comet' is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, do YOU?
Please, tell me again.

Remember I’m the dumb arse here and you my friend are the expert.

Why is the electric comet physically impossible, Indagator?
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 04:30 AM   #2972
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
Or, Indagator, if it’s easier, maybe you could explain how the jets work?

Still seems allusive for mainstream. You on the other hand seem to be quite knowledgeable on the subject of Dirtysnowballs/Icydirtballs.
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 04:36 AM   #2973
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
Originally Posted by Indagator View Post
[url=http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13095881&postcount=2973]

This is the first question you MUST ANSWER!

Are "icy dirt balls" acceptable as a foundation for your 'electric comet' myth?

Your answer?

Because the internet NEVER forgets, Sol88, this EPIC FAILURE will always be a part of your legacy here at the ISF!!!

Furthermore, this EPIC FAILURE will NEVER go away until you've dealt with its implications!

Do you have the courage to address this issue? Do you have the courage to admit you've made a mistake?

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

Look in the mirror, Sol88! What do you see?
My answer,
Quote:
Therefore, comets and KBOs may have less water than CI-chondrites
Fulle

Further,

Carbonaceous Chondrites as Source of Earth’s Water

Where’s the 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 20th May 2020, 04:38 AM   #2974
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
So you tell me Indagator, which mainstream scientists should I have, like you, “Faith” in?
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 04:41 AM   #2975
Indagator
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
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.

Obliviously? That's the best you can do for an insult? Truly and typically PATHETIC! Thanks for nothing! Hee! Hee!

Gas and gravity? Certainly! However, to model stars, I also need to use thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, quantum mechanics, plasma physics, ...! And you? Just bunny's and magic for your 'electric comet' dragon mythology?

Sol88, you'll NEVER win! And you'll NEVER learn! Time to up your game, boy!

And speaking of games, let's play something new, Sol88!

I always enjoy using your own words against you! Let's start here -

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So you will only believe it when published in a peer reviewed paper?

Deca et al, published in a peer reviewed paper, the following quote -

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.

Tell me, Sol88, do you only believe it when published in a peer reviewed paper?

Deca et al's simulation of the solar wind interacting with a weakly outgassing "icy dirt ball" was published in a peer reviewed paper!

Can you TRUST the findings in Deca et al, knowing that their peer reviewed paper was built around an "icy dirt ball" producing 1026 neutral water molecules per second?

Here's a little peer reviewed quote from Divin et al (2019) -

Originally Posted by Divin et al (2019)
Magnetic reconnection is a universal plasma processes which is responsible for the release of the stored magnetic energy, reconfiguration of the stressed field lines, generation of fast plasma flows, and energetic particles. Magnetic reconnection is involved in energy transfer in the Earth’s magnetosphere; it drives explosive events on the solar surface and disruptions in tokamaks. The process has been the subject of many theoretical and modeling studies in past decades. It is well understood now that magnetic reconnection involves processes happening on two very different scales. The macroscale contains the entire volume of interacting magnetic fluxtubes frozen into plasma. At the microscale, the Diffusion Region(s) (DR) host(s) intense currents which allow for a diffusive mechanism (or a combination of diffusive mechanisms) to break field lines.

Tell me, Sol88, will you only believe it when published in a peer reviewed paper?

Divin et al, says that magnetic reconnection is a real and universal plasma process! Guess what, Sol88? Indagator agrees with Divin et al! Magnetic reconnection is a REAL and universal plasma process! It's right there in a peer reviewed paper published in 2019! And FYI? Deca is also a co-author on this paper!

Now, how can you TRUST ANYTHING Divin says about suprathermal electrons, knowing that the good Doctor has spent more than a decade investigating magnetic reconnection, and occasionally using tools like magnetohydrodynamics to do it? OOPS!

Sol88, me thinks your 'electric comet' lacks significant support from mainstream scientists! Just as well, really! You don't seem to think much of mainstream science or mainstream scientists! Knowing that Deca and Divin study magnetic reconnection, you'll need to stop referencing their peer reviewed papers! Your loss, of course! I wonder what kind of scientific critical mass would convince you, Sol88, that your whole 'electric fantasy' is WRONG!

Divin et al (2019) Inner and Outer Electron Diffusion Region of Antiparallel Collisionless Reconnection: Density Dependence

Here's a little something to think about, Sol88! Regardless of your personal fantasies, your 'eu/es/ec' mythology will NEVER replace mainstream models! Models NOT based on science will always FAIL! Models based on looks like a bunny will always FAIL!

I also wanted to remind you, Sol88, you've got a FATAL PROBLEM to deal with!
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 20th May 2020, 04:48 AM   #2976
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,787
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Why do YOU think it is important, tusenfem?
For me not so much for the topics that I am insterested in.
__________________
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 20th May 2020, 05:06 AM   #2977
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
Originally Posted by Indagator View Post
Obliviously? That's the best you can do for an insult? Truly and typically PATHETIC! Thanks for nothing! Hee! Hee!

Gas and gravity? Certainly! However, to model stars, I also need to use thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, quantum mechanics, plasma physics, ...! And you? Just bunny's and magic for your 'electric comet' dragon mythology?

Sol88, you'll NEVER win! And you'll NEVER learn! Time to up your game, boy!

And speaking of games, let's play something new, Sol88!

I always enjoy using your own words against you! Let's start here -




Deca et al, published in a peer reviewed paper, the following quote -




Tell me, Sol88, do you only believe it when published in a peer reviewed paper?

Deca et al's simulation of the solar wind interacting with a weakly outgassing "icy dirt ball" was published in a peer reviewed paper!

Can you TRUST the findings in Deca et al, knowing that their peer reviewed paper was built around an "icy dirt ball" producing 1026 neutral water molecules per second?

Here's a little peer reviewed quote from Divin et al (2019) -




Tell me, Sol88, will you only believe it when published in a peer reviewed paper?

Divin et al, says that magnetic reconnection is a real and universal plasma process! Guess what, Sol88? Indagator agrees with Divin et al! Magnetic reconnection is a REAL and universal plasma process! It's right there in a peer reviewed paper published in 2019! And FYI? Deca is also a co-author on this paper!

Now, how can you TRUST ANYTHING Divin says about suprathermal electrons, knowing that the good Doctor has spent more than a decade investigating magnetic reconnection, and occasionally using tools like magnetohydrodynamics to do it? OOPS!

Sol88, me thinks your 'electric comet' lacks significant support from mainstream scientists! Just as well, really! You don't seem to think much of mainstream science or mainstream scientists! Knowing that Deca and Divin study magnetic reconnection, you'll need to stop referencing their peer reviewed papers! Your loss, of course! I wonder what kind of scientific critical mass would convince you, Sol88, that your whole 'electric fantasy' is WRONG!

Divin et al (2019) Inner and Outer Electron Diffusion Region of Antiparallel Collisionless Reconnection: Density Dependence

Here's a little something to think about, Sol88! Regardless of your personal fantasies, your 'eu/es/ec' mythology will NEVER replace mainstream models! Models NOT based on science will always FAIL! Models based on looks like a bunny will always FAIL!

I also wanted to remind you, Sol88, you've got a FATAL PROBLEM to deal with!
Fatal?

Sweet as!



So which has more water, Indagator? Comets or chondrites?

Must have missed your answer, my apologies.
__________________
“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; 20th May 2020 at 05:09 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 20th May 2020, 05:07 AM   #2978
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
For me not so much for the topics that I am insterested in.
So not important, for you at least?

Ok.

Thank you.
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 05:15 AM   #2979
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,787
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?
There are no implications for the sublimating nucleus whatsoever.

The suprathermal electrons (may) affect the charging of the dust around the comet, according to the introduction by Divin et al. [2020], however, I do not see such a claim in Gombosi et al. [2015].

But Gombosi et al. do say that: "We show that the observations are consistent with gas-drag acceleration of the outflowing particles with radii of 3−4 nm, and with the returning fragments of bigger particles accelerated by radiation pressure with approximate radii of 30−80 nm."
__________________
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 20th May 2020, 06:06 AM   #2980
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
Thank you tusenfem.
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 06:16 AM   #2981
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,851
Sigh.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
<content not relevant to the topic of this thread, The Electric Comet Theory, snipped>
Yet again, another post by Sol88 that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Why, Sol88, why?

Why do we never, it seems, read anything by you on the Electric Comet Theory, which is what this thread is about (as well as SAFIRE)?
JeanTate 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 20th May 2020, 10:17 AM   #2982
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,874
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Why do we never, it seems, read anything by you on the Electric Comet Theory, which is what this thread is about (as well as SAFIRE)?
Sol88 has long ago dropped talking about EU theory. Instead he explores perceived failings of conventional theories in the expectation that EU will then magically be physically possible by default.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 20th May 2020, 10:46 AM   #2983
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,855
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Fatal?

Sweet as!



So which has more water, Indagator? Comets or chondrites?

Must have missed your answer, my apologies.
Do I need to remind you that your woo says comets have no water and no ice. And that electric woo is happening. And that the comet is rock. All of which are trivially falsified. Most of it by 1986. Twenty years before your woo was invented. How about dealing with the complete failure of your impossible woo? Or go troll somewhere else.
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 10:50 AM   #2984
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,855
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

Where’s the ice?
And how many times are you going to lie about ice never being detected? How many times do we have to link to the detections before you stop lying?
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 10:52 AM   #2985
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,855
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

Remember I’m the dumb arse here
Correct again. Take that thought with you and go troll your impossible woo elsewhere. It has nothing to do with science.
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 10:54 AM   #2986
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,855
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

Why is the electric comet physically impossible, Indagator?
You have already been told that. You have the memory of a gnat.
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 01:45 PM   #2987
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,098
Exclamation "As tusenfems agrees Divin..." lies.

"As tusenfems agrees Divin..." lies.

tusenfem quoted Devin stating that "Understanding the suprathermal electron population is important" and why it is important.
This is real science irrelevant to his electric comet dogma.
A lie that we do no understand the suprathermal electron population.
Gibberish about ice. Sublimating ice is the source of the neutral gas that is ionizes to produce electrons in the comet coma.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 02:13 PM   #2988
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,098
Exclamation A "Water clusters in the dust???" lie

A "Water clusters in the dust???" lie.

He quotes "5 NO DISTRIBUTED WATER SOURCES" from Marco Fulle et. al. which is about the distribution of water sources on the comet surface, not the coma.
jonesdave116 wrote Gombosi's dust is water clusters. Water shouldn't be there according to your woo. Dust shouldn't be there, according to your woo. Gombosi et al. 2015 says the singularly charged nano-grains were identified as dust. Water or dust, they debunk the electric comet dogma.
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 20th May 2020, 02:15 PM   #2989
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,098
Exclamation The usual abysmal level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009

The thousands of lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
124 items of lies, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020
The abysmal insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's dogma, etc. (no astronomer believes comets are actual rock)

Next post: An irrelevant lying "A gas or a plasma" question.
Next post: An irrelevant "Why do YOU think it is important" question.
Next post: "As tusenfems agrees Divin..." lies.
Next post: A "Why would be import to understand them" lie when Devin says why.
Next post: Repeats his "Why do YOU think it is important" question about mainstream science irrelevant to his dogma.
Next post: "the context of" gibberish about a phrase in the Devin quote.
Next post: A "Water clusters in the dust???" lie.
Next post: An idiotic "Please, tell me again." demand when he has been told for 11 years why the electric comet is physically impossible (see my signature).
Next post: A lying "you could explain how the jets work?" question when this has been explained to him many times and is irrelevant to his dogma.
Next post: A "My answer" lie when he cites and lies about mainstream science irrelevant to his dogma
Next post: An irrelevant “Faith” in scientists question.
Next post: A lying "So which has more water, Indagator? Comets or chondrites?" question. He knows the answer. It is chondrites as predicted by the mainstream model !

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th May 2020 at 02:49 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 20th May 2020, 02:21 PM   #2990
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,098
Exclamation An idiotic "Please, tell me again." demand

An idiotic "Please, tell me again." demand when he has been told for 11 years why the electric comet is physically impossible (see my signature).
  • He was told the measured density of comets at the start of the thread.
  • The measured density and porosity of 67P says it is physically impossible for 67P to be actual rock.
  • No massive solar electric field capable of tearing solid rock apart has been detected. The fantasy does not tear spacecraft apart such as Rosetta whiuc followed comet 67P. The fantasy does not tear hundreds of thousands of asteroids apart when they have orbits that his dogma states they have to be comets.
  • Electric discharges are physically impossible in plasma because they conduct.
  • No radiation from these electric discharge fantasies has been detected.
  • We have images of jets issuing from the neck (lowest part) of 67P and even from inside pits!

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th May 2020 at 02:26 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 20th May 2020, 02:31 PM   #2991
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,098
Exclamation A lying "you could explain how the jets work?" question

A lying "you could explain how the jets work?" question when this has been explained to him many times and is irrelevant to his dogma.
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 20th May 2020, 02:39 PM   #2992
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,098
Exclamation A "My answer" lie when he cites and lies about mainstream science

A "My answer" lie when he cites and lies about mainstream science irrelevant to his dogma

He lies by quote mining Fulle again.
Quote:
Therefore, comets and KBOs may have less water than CI-chondrites
is support of the mainstream model where comets are predicted to have less water than CI-chondrites !

A lie that the "primitive meteorites" in Carbonaceous Chondrites as Source of Earth’s Water have ice ("Where’s the ice?"). The water in their minerals are evidence of ice in the early Solar System.
Quote:
The evidence for this ice is now preserved in objects like comets and water-bearing carbonaceous chondrites. The team’s findings contradict prevailing theories about the relationship between these two types of bodies and suggest that meteorites, and their parent asteroids, are the most-likely sources of the Earth’s water.
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 20th May 2020, 02:57 PM   #2993
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,098
Exclamation Items of Sol88 lies, etc. since ~10 March 2020

The thousands of lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma already show how persistent Sol88 is about lying. But Sol88 insists more lies so back to telling the world about his behavior (or at least anyone who finds this thread):
124 items of lies, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020
  1. A lie of a "6.4x 1013" mass of 67P .
  2. A "Plasma/Gas it's all the same..." lie about textbook physics that high school students can understand.
  3. A lying "What are your thoughts, tusenfem, on the prospect of the nucleus carrying a charge?" question when it has been answered dozens of times.
  4. "As tusenfems agrees Divin..." lies.
  5. A "Water clusters in the dust???" lie.
  6. An idiotic "Please, tell me again." demand when he has been told for 11 years why the electric comet is physically impossible (see my signature).
  7. A lying "you could explain how the jets work?" question when this has been explained to him many times and is irrelevant to his dogma.
  8. A "My answer" lie when he cites and lies about mainstream science irrelevant to his dogma.
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 20th May 2020, 05:22 PM   #2994
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,855
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
You have already been told that. You have the memory of a gnat.
OK, let's add some meat to the bones, not for the first time.

Interplanetary lightning bolts blasting solid rock off of planets?
Not happening, not possible.

Radial field around the Sun?
Again, not happening. Why would there be such a thing? There is a radial magnetic field. Electric fields are perpendicular to magnetic fields, so it could not be radial, anyways. Is this something to do with the equally impossible electric sun? If the Sun is an anode, how is it managing to emit ions and electrons in ~ equal number, in the same direction, at the same velocity, whilst attracting a bunch of electrons to power it? How are said incoming electrons getting past the solar wind, and the IMF, on their way out? Whence the neutrinos? You want them on the surface, or in the chromosphere, as per Scott? Kiss goodbye to your planet. It'd be fried by gamma rays. Really, really, dumb idea.

Electric discharge machining?
Seriously? That is a human invented process that is used in a lab under very controlled conditions. No chance it is happening in astrophysical settings.

And that is without getting into all the evidence that shows that all of the EC woo is not happening. It is a dumb idea, conjured up by Velikovskian non-scientists.
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 06:46 PM   #2995
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,098
Originally Posted by Indagator View Post
To paraphrase my answer regarding water content, until we have sufficient statistical data, it is inappropriate at this time, to draw any conclusions on whether comets or asteroids will contain the most water!
FYI Indagator, what Sol88 is lying about with his "Therefore, comets and KBOs may have less water than CI-chondrites" quote mine is explained in my post pointing out that it is a lie that Fulle or Lucchetti, et. al. (2019) stated that comets are rock.

The refractory-to-ice mass ratio in comets by Fulle, et. al. (January 2019)
Quote:
We review the complex relationship between the dust-to-gas mass ratio usually estimated in the material lost by comets, and the refractory-to-ice mass ratio inside the nucleus, which constrains the origin of comets. Such a relationship is dominated by the mass transfer from the perihelion erosion to fallout over most of the nucleus surface. This makes the refractory-to-ice mass ratio inside the nucleus up to 10 times larger than the dust-to-gas mass ratio in the lost material, because the lost material is missing most of the refractories which were inside the pristine nucleus before the erosion. We review the refractory-to-ice mass ratios available for the comet nuclei visited by space missions, and for the Kuiper Belt Objects with well-defined bulk density, finding the 1-σ lower limit of 3. Therefore, comets and KBOs may have less water than CI-chondrites, as predicted by models of comet formation by the gravitational collapse of cm-sized pebbles driven by streaming instabilities in the protoplanetary disc.
I have highlighted his lie by quote mining. We predict that comets will have less water than CI chondrites. This paper supports this mainstream science.
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 20th May 2020, 11:14 PM   #2996
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
heard it here first folks.

Scoops by rc!

Quote:
We predict that comets will have less water than CI chondrites. This paper supports this mainstream science.
__________________
“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 20th May 2020, 11:35 PM   #2997
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
How much water do CI-chondrites have then, reality check?

Quote:
Formation
CI chondrites and the closely related CM chondrites are very rich in volatile substances, especially in water. It is assumed that they originally formed in the outer asteroid belt, at a distance surpassing 4 AU – the reason for this being the so-called snow line situated at this distance and representing a temperature of 160 K. At these conditions any water present condensed to ice and was therefore preserved. This is supported by the similarity of CI chondrites with the icy moons of the outer Solar system. Furthermore, there seems to exist a connection to comets: like the comets, CI chondrites accreted silicates, ice and other volatiles, as well as organic compounds (example: Comet Halley).
__________________
“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; 20th May 2020 at 11:42 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 20th May 2020, 11:48 PM   #2998
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,917
Quote:
Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces.
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. This behaviour agrees with the refractory to ice ratio estimated from grains ejected from 67P (Fulle et al., 2019).
The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko



Quote:
Therefore, comets and KBOs may have less water than CI-chondrites, as predicted by models of comet formation by the gravitational collapse of cm-sized pebbles driven by streaming instabilities in the protoplanetary disc.
The Refractory-to-Ice Mass Ratio in Comets

Quote:
The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice. The total mass loss M puts hard constraints on the models of interpretation of the observations from other instruments on Rosetta
Pätzold

Just say'n
__________________
“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 21st May 2020, 08:14 AM   #2999
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,851
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
<snip>

Just say'n trollin'
FTFY
JeanTate 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 21st May 2020, 10:29 AM   #3000
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,855
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko



The Refractory-to-Ice Mass Ratio in Comets

Pätzold

Just say'n
None of which has anything to do with your failed woo. No rock, no discharges, no EDM. It failed twenty years before it was invented. How dumb do you need to be to come up with something that was already ruled out two decades before you invented 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
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 02:26 AM.
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.