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 18th January 2018, 01:39 PM   #1322
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,898
Thumbs down Sol88: Idiotic questions to derail from is comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The most common model? ...
19 January 2018 Sol88: Idiotic questions to derail from is comet delusions with the stupidity of not knowing that scientific models can be revised when new data is collected.

His comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, etc. etc.

19 January 2018 Sol88: Lies about what he quotes from Yu. V. Skorov.
Quote:
Conclusions. In the framework of the presented model, which can be considered common in terms of assumptions and physical parameters in the cometary community, the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism. The sublimation of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding to 1.3 AU. Away out of this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community
.
There is no "most common model" as in a model in that quote. There is only the presented model.

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Skorov, Yu. V.; Rezac, L.; Hartogh, P.; Keller, H. U.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th January 2018 at 02:14 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 01:45 PM   #1323
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,898
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie of "confusion" about basic English to derail from his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yu. V. Skorov
19 January 2018 Sol88: A lie of "confusion" about basic English to derail from his comet delusions.

18 January 2018 Sol88: Repeats the lie that any problems with the working comet model is support for his comet delusions.

His comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, etc. etc.

Yu. V. Skorov: "We examine a wide range of dust grain sizes" and his paper finds that some sizes are not ejected using their model.
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 January 2018, 01:50 PM   #1324
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,294
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Why would I need to? He is quite explicit in the paper I linked about how the smaller grains must have got into the coma. It is you that doesn't believe it, and it is therefore up to you to challenge him. So you should be emailing him, and telling him why he is wrong. Let us know what he says. If you haven't got the cojones to do that, then I would drop this pointless line of reasoning (whatever it is).
Not what I read.

Quote:
The question remains which physical process is responsible for the production of the smaller dust-size fractions observed in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and in the comae and tails of other comets. Because of the estimated high internal tensile strengths of the released dust aggregates of 100Pa (Blum et al. 2006), the stress required for the disintegration or fragmentation must exceed the tensile strength. Of the three obvious processes, (1) collisions among the dust aggregates, (2) electric charging of the dust aggregates, and (3) spin-up and centrifugal mass loss of the dust aggregates, respectively, collisions seem to be too infrequent, and a typical electrostatic potential in the interplanetary space of 5V is far too low to reach the required stresses. Thus, only rotational spin-up can be considered as a candidate for mass loss of the dust aggregates on their departure from the nucleus.
So that’s three possible causes...but only number three gets a run.

Until


Quote:
Thus, following Eq. 6, the highest centrifugal stress is σmax ≈ 0.1 Pa, much too low to explain the formation of small dust aggregates by centrifugal splitting.
So where does that leave you jd116?



I’d say number 2 has got a Guernsey here when dig a little deeper and look at those electric fields on the surface of a comet!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 01:51 PM   #1325
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,898
Thumbs down Sol88: Outgassing rate lies to derail from his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Which impacts the outgassing rate guess which throws a global diamagnetic cavity in the same basket as the density guess
19 January 2018 Sol88: Outgassing rate lies to derail from his comet delusions.
A lie that there is a "outgassing rate guess".
A probable lie that Yu. V. Skorov is about outgassing rates.
A totally blatant lie that there is a "density guess" because he has know. the several different methods o measuring comet density for many years.

His comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, etc. etc.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 02:05 PM   #1326
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,898
Thumbs down Sol88: Persists in the false dicotomy lie

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Bugger!...
19 January 2018 Sol88: Persists in the lie that any problems with the working comet model are support for his comet delusions.
This would be the logical fallacy of false dichotomy if he had a theory or evidence. But he has a collection of insanely bad delusions that he cannot even start to defend and after over 8 years he knows this. So it is a false dichotomy lie.

19 January 2018 Sol88: Lies about an ices and dust paper again.
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view
Quote:
11 CONCLUSIONS The classical model of comets as dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950)has focused most models of comets on ices. The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear. With 67P’s dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside.
This is easily understood English. There is a scientific model of comets made of ices and dust. The "classic" comet was more ices than dust. 67P is not a classic comet - it has more dust than water.

No support for his comment delusions in a paper recommending more modeling of dust and ices !
His comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, etc. etc.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 02:24 PM   #1327
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,294
67p is not a classic comet! Classic!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 02:25 PM   #1328
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,898
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie about Hu, X. et al to derail from his comet delusion

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Not what I read.
19 January 2018 Sol88: A lie about Hu, X. et al to derail from his comet delusions.
This is the cited paper
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Thermal modelling of water activity on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko with global dust mantle and plural dust-to-ice ratio
Hu, X. et al
http://elib.dlr.de/117435/1/stx1607.pdf (opens pdf directly)
The quotes do not exist in that paper!
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 January 2018, 02:37 PM   #1329
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,898
Thumbs down Sol88: Not understanding what classic means to derail from his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
67p is not a classic comet! Classic!
19 January 2018 Sol88: Not understanding what classic means to derail from his comet delusions.

His comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, etc. etc.

It is simple enough for any rational, knowledgeable person to understand.
Over 70 years ago the measured density of many different comets showed that they were mostly ices including water. This is the "classic" dirty snowball comet - an average over many comet ratios of ices and dust.
The Rosetta mission measured the density and composition of 1 comet called Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. This was more dust than water and not the total idiocy of rock ! Thus 67P is not a "classic" comet with more ices than dust.
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 January 2018, 03:26 PM   #1330
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,294
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
19 January 2018 Sol88: Not understanding what classic means to derail from his comet delusions.

His comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, etc. etc.

It is simple enough for any rational, knowledgeable person to understand.
Over 70 years ago the measured density of many different comets showed that they were mostly ices including water. This is the "classic" dirty snowball comet - an average over many comet ratios of ices and dust.
The Rosetta mission measured the density and composition of 1 comet called Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. This was more dust than water and not the total idiocy of rock ! Thus 67P is not a "classic" comet with more ices than dust.
No not a classic comet an electric comet.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2018, 03:35 PM   #1331
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,898
Thumbs down Sol88: Lies abut my post which was about real comets not the electric comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
No not a classic comet an electric comet.
19 January 2018 Sol88: Lies about my post which was about real comets not the insane electric comet delusions.

Electric comets still do not exist!

His comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, etc. etc.

The lie is not a surprise given:
603 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 18 January 2018 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th January 2018 at 03:37 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
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 04:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.