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.
Closed Thread
Old 15th July 2018, 02:34 AM   #3601
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,410
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Please show me up as the goose I am.

I didn’t say he didn’t support his own simulations ya muppet. I asked how far from the nucleus the charges got back together, not sure if your playing with a full deck. How old are you now?
And as long as you are incapable of comparing a few figures in the paper, this whole discussino is moot.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Btw his passage was this not sure if that re establishes quasi neutrality or makes Hydrogen?
Think a bit harder about it, it will come to you, when you finally understand what the paper says.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
No mention of distance I could find but great paper and a bit of cold water over another recent paper!
If you say so

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Even by his own admission the lead author stated!
That MHD is at some locations not applicable has been know for a loooooong time, specifically e.g. after the singing comet discovery. That is still is a surprise to you is no surprise to me.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
But then straight into that ‘ol chestnut

assumed the incorrect model.
And all my efforts of trying to explain you something have been of little use. You thank me for giving explanations for "the lurkers", but apparently you don't consider the fact that even you (the expert on EC) might benifit from some explanation e.g. about MHD applicability.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And you knew all along about charge separation! That and Together with your playing with a direct answer to my question on how far those + & - are getting together.
I am not playing, just fed up with your games of trying to get people to explain stuff for you, then accepting and thanking those explanations (which are probably only for the lurkers) and then come back again with the same nonsense and questions and non-understandings.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
If you don’t know ask jd116. He’s been pretty sure they got to much energy to get back together.
I am pretty sure if JD would look at figure 1 (?) of Jan Deca's paper, he would also see how the "neutralisation" takes place (within the simulation box).

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Paper might be a dud, along with Y.Skorov’s dust lifting paper, you now the one?
Skorov probably worked with the wrong numbers as a group at the university where Skorov is working pointed out at the last Rosetta SWT meeting.
I am not sure if I "now" the 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 Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 02:49 AM   #3602
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,410
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Now, look I was more than chuffed when he confirmed my prediction on charge separation of the solar wind, magnetic fields moving past one another generating electric currents, CME’s flaring the comet and MHD not being applicable at comets, field aligned currents and the tail of a comet being a birkeland current!

So yeah well done M.Vowerk!
Thank you, you have a very good imagination.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 04:30 AM   #3603
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
No worries navigating Rosetta around, you just compensate for the “gravity” that is present. Problem is you’ve used Newton's law in error when you should have used Coulomb's law
Wrong. The gravity is as measured. As explained. If it wasn't, the spacecraft would not be orbiting as it was seen to for two years. Electrostatic repulsion doesn't work. If you think it does, then show us the maths. It has already been done for you, so shouldn't be difficult. What does the charge on the comet need to be? What was detected by Rosetta and Philae?
So, I'll repeat, for the hard of understanding; there is no rock. CONSERT doesn't see rock, MIRO doesn't see rock, MUPUS doesn't see rock, CASSE/ SESAME doesn't see rock. The RSI experiment doesn't see rock. The orbit of the spacecraft doesn't see rock. The Tempel 1 impactor doesn't reveal rock.
There is no rock. No amount of posting scientifically illiterate nonsense is going to change that.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 04:54 AM   #3604
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Problem is you’ve used Newton's law in error when you should have used Coulomb's law
Which is? I think you'll find that it is precisely as used by Harvey on the Rosetta blog, and Tom Bridgman on his blog, to show that this is a totally dumb idea, and the charge you would need is impossible. And would tear the comet apart. And the spacecraft.
However, if you want to show where the derivation of that charge is wrong, then redo Harvey's calculation, here:
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/04...comment-432278

You will notice that ke q1q2/r^2 used by Harvey, is indeed Coulomb's law. So get to it electric geniuses. What does the charge on the comet need to be to cancel out 80% of the 'real' gravity? Looking forward to seeing the maths.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 06:58 AM   #3605
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,233
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So, we have The Man, Reality Check and Jean Tate all now agreeing on how pervasive charge separation is and when you talk magnitudes it can become powerful enough to power...The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE of with THE ELECTRIC COMET is but a infinitesimally small part of the whole.

What do you mean "now"? Who has agreed "it can become powerful enough to power...The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE of with THE ELECTRIC COMET". Exactly how powerful does it need to be to "power...The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE of with THE ELECTRIC COMET". Until EU and EC proponents can at least assert that, no one can agree with them. Not even themselves.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 07:04 AM   #3606
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,233
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
All very sensible and rational.

If you read Sol88’s posts in this thread, and earlier, you may find that what he means by certain key terms - such as “charge separation” - differs in rather important ways from what you (and physics textbooks and papers) mean (Sol88 is not unique in this regard, IMHO it’s widespread among EU fans). It’s one reason why threads like this go on for what seems like forever.
Actually my one assertion about the potential dropping below the breakdown threshold being the cut off was in error. The kinetic thermal effect would tend to maintain the plasma conduit so the cutoff potential would most likely be well below the original breakdown potential.

Sorry.

Soll88 just seems to be playing word games.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 07:18 AM   #3607
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,233
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yup, turtles all the way!
Nope, even the "turtles" succumb to stronger creatures further "down".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction


Heck it ain't even "turtles" all the way up. As large scale neutrality keeps all the up town "turtles" from working together. As already mentioned before just the very internal strife among the two types of "turtles" would limit what they could do even without that large scale neutrality.

Electric Turtle theory suffers the same deficiencies as EC and EU.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 07:44 AM   #3608
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,410
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
What do you mean "now"? Who has agreed "it can become powerful enough to power...The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE of with THE ELECTRIC COMET". Exactly how powerful does it need to be to "power...The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE of with THE ELECTRIC COMET". Until EU and EC proponents can at least assert that, no one can agree with them. Not even themselves.
sol is rather creative in his interpretations of what other people say or think
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 08:23 AM   #3609
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,233
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
sol is rather creative in his interpretations of what other people say or think
Sure, but seeming having grasped the impotence of magnitude of separation "now", one would expect that to become the focus of discussion. Though as expected Sol88 most likely already well knew the significance of the magnitude such separations and deliberately avoids it, while (again probably deliberately) erroneously asserting others are "all now agreeing" such (still unquantified by EU and EC proponents) magnitudes are even possible let alone maintainable.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 09:57 AM   #3610
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,410
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Sure, but seeming having grasped the impotence of magnitude of separation "now", one would expect that to become the focus of discussion. Though as expected Sol88 most likely already well knew the significance of the magnitude such separations and deliberately avoids it, while (again probably deliberately) erroneously asserting others are "all now agreeing" such (still unquantified by EU and EC proponents) magnitudes are even possible let alone maintainable.
yes, that is why in several of my last posts i tried to get an answer about how intense is intense, what are the numbers needed, and are they feasible and/or observed.

maybe sol will get math help at thunderdolts (though from the craziness in tnat thread i greatly doubt it)
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 10:26 AM   #3611
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,096
I'm afraid that all we will get is what we have been getting, both here and elsewhere for about 15 years; woo, word salad, obfuscation, avoidance of questions, inability to understand basic science, and a complete lack of quantification. This nonsense lives on because Thornhill and Talbott need it to live on. Even having an astronaut on the surface digging a hole wouldn't convince them to alter their fairy tale. As Talbott said way back:

Quote:
If there's water ice on the surface, I'll be the first to say that my prediction, along with those of several others, was DEAD WRONG. Our critics would have good cause to celebrate such a miscalculation on our part.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2439

And how many times has ice been detected on or under the surface? Including in the ejecta from Tempel 1 in 2005!! For me, these people are no different in their debating style than YECs. Nothing will ever convince them that their fairy story is nonsense.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 11:37 AM   #3612
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
All right I ‘spose, we’ll head back to the misinterpretation of gravity for electro static repulsion .

No worries navigating Rosetta around, you just compensate for the “gravity” that is present. Problem is you’ve used Newton's law in error when you should have used Coulomb's law


So then when you divide mass by volume, p=m/V you end with some ridiculous comets are mainly empty space with only dust and a little ice!

You can’t tell everyone’s lying eyes the thing is dust with some ice when it in fact what it looks like!

And if you hold your word on the place that never forgets and this last piece of the puzzle is solved for the mainstream, is that for you, this one is all that you need?
Great post, Sol88!

From what I've read of the ELECTRIC COMET model (or Theory), as posted by you in this thread, I don't see any way to estimate what the charges on any comet will be, at any point in their orbits, from "first principles" shall we say. Nor have you presented anything that looks as if it could be used to estimate the charge on Rosetta, at any point in its orbit.

But the good news is that you should be able to estimate a range for what the charge differences will be!

How?

Here's my suggestion:
1) Start with acknowledging that Rosetta and 67P could have the same charge (i.e. both either negative or both positive) or opposite charges
2) Obtain an estimate of the volume of 67P; from your library of papers that you've cited in this thread, this should be a piece of cake
3) From this, estimate the mass of 67P assuming it to be solid rock; pick a range of densities to include most likely compositions; you'll get a range
4) Using "Newton's law" and "Coulomb's law", derive an expression for q1q2, assuming the force due to the latter is a fraction of the former, say "f". If you need help with this, holler; we're here to help you
5) Derive what q1q2 must be (a range) for the estimated density to be 0.5 (say), assuming that estimated density is derived from "Newton's law" alone
6) Present us with the result (as well as your working)!

You may find that the work Harvey and Bridgman did, as presented in sources which I'm sure you're all too familiar with, helpful. Note that you do NOT have to follow their method(s).

Quote:
You up for it?

<snip>
Sol88, you are the one defining, promoting, and defending the ELECTRIC COMET model (not me).

I cannot tell how to apply "Newton's law" and "Coulomb's law" in the case of Rosetta and 67P, within the framework of the ELECTRIC COMET model; you are the only ISF member active here who can.

So, let's see you use the ELECTRIC COMET model to estimate q1q2 (a range)!
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 Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 12:01 PM   #3613
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
1) Start with acknowledging that Rosetta and 67P could have the same charge (i.e. both either negative or both positive) or opposite charges
And, just to stick my two cents in; the charge on Rosetta could (indeed, did) change, both in sign and in strength. One must also assume that in the EC woo the comet, due to it discharging, is also experiencing a different charge between ~ 4 AU and perihelion, and then back out again. How to quantify this? How to calculate the bound orbits that Rosetta performed? Stick to Newton and everything works just fine (and did). Use Coulomb, and the EC, and you never bother with the mission, as there are too many unknowns.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 15th July 2018 at 12:07 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 12:17 PM   #3614
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
And, just to stick my two cents in; the charge on Rosetta could (indeed, did) change, both in sign and in strength. One must also assume that in the EC woo the comet, due to it discharging, is also experiencing a different charge between ~ 4 AU and perihelion, and then back out again. How to quantify this? How to calculate the bound orbits that Rosetta performed? Stick to Newton and everything works just fine (and did). Use Coulomb, and the EC, and you never bother with the mission, as there are too many unknowns.
One step at a time, jd, one step at a time.

Let's wait for Sol88 to present his own analysis, done within/based on the ELECTRIC COMET model, and we can ask questions about it after the presentation. I'm sure Sol88 will be thorough, so it's reasonable to expect that his presentation will allow anyone to independently verify his work, and (hopefully) allow anyone to independently extend that work to more general cases.

After all, that's what we expect of everything in science isn't it (objective, independent verifiability)? And Sol88 has never, publicly, disavowed the scientific method, has he?
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 Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 04:04 PM   #3615
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,476
Usual lies and derails from his electric comet insanity over the weekend

More than 1060 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion, insults, and lies from 6 July 2009 to 27 June 2018

Another ~115 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion, derails, insults, and lies from 27 July 2018 to 16 July 2018

Sol88's 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, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.


18 November 2010: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions by Wal Thornhill
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
13 April 2018: A couple of the delusions in Scott's Birkeland current paper.

The electric comet delusion has at least 45 years without a scientific electric comet model or observations to support it!

Over 4 years of the fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
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 Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 04:07 PM   #3616
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,476
Question Where are the ʻOumuamua jets, coma and tails predicted by your electric comet

13 July 2018 Sol88: Where are the ʻOumuamua jets, coma and tails predicted by your electric comet?
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 Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 04:46 PM   #3617
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,096
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
One step at a time, jd, one step at a time.
Damn you, JT! You are sneaking up on something that was figured out years ago! Well, I'm not not going to blow the whatsit! Carry on!
Sol will never figure it out. Bless 'im.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 05:31 PM   #3618
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
I'm afraid that all we will get is what we have been getting, both here and elsewhere for about 15 years; woo, word salad, obfuscation, avoidance of questions, inability to understand basic science, and a complete lack of quantification. This nonsense lives on because Thornhill and Talbott need it to live on. Even having an astronaut on the surface digging a hole wouldn't convince them to alter their fairy tale. As Talbott said way back:



http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2439

And how many times has ice been detected on or under the surface? Including in the ejecta from Tempel 1 in 2005!! For me, these people are no different in their debating style than YECs. Nothing will ever convince them that their fairy story is nonsense.
My turn, damn you jd!

In a moment of weakness, I clicked on that link ... and spent hours, hours I tell ya! reading the rest of that thread! I just couldn't stop, it was so appalling, funny, ... just when I thought it couldn't get more insane, along came a new post that blew me away yet again!

I've just got to quote two posts (links within them, and some formatting, lost):

First, by W.D. Clinger:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haig
You have to laugh
Yes, but we aren't all laughing at the same things.

Quote:
First - Why did I bring Miles Mathis into this thread ? ...

Electric Comets requires an Electric Sun requires an Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology ... it's a package deal they ALL go together

And Miles Mathis has a finger in ALL those Pi(s)
Yes, that's pretty funny.

Originally Posted by Haig
Second - In my list of some the Space Greats ... Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Birkland, Bruce, Velikovsky, Alfvén, Juergens, Scott, Thornhill, Talbott, Mathis ...
Originally Posted by jmckaskle
The real question to ask is not whether anyone got anything wrong, but whether they got anything right. Bruce, Velikovsky, Juergens, Scott, Thornhill, Talbott, and Mathis are batting 0.
Let's give Haig credit for knowing Bruce, Velikovsky, Scott, Thornhill, and Talbott belong in the same sentence with Miles Mathis.

What's funny is he thought Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Birkeland, and Alfvén belonged in the same sentence with Miles Mathis.

Originally Posted by Haig
I don't see a problem with Mathis's logic, reasoning or math and he is right to point to the "holes" in mainstream dogma.
It does require a certain degree of mathematical sophistication to realize pi is not actually equal to 4...

...just as it requires a considerable degree of scientific illiteracy to believe Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein should be grouped with one of the more prolific crackpots of our generation.
To his credit, Sol88 seems not to have endorsed Haig/Mathis.

The second by ferd burfle:

Quote:
Looks like you didn't read very closely, Haig. From your link above:
The volume of the model yields a mean density of 470 ± 45 kg/m3 when combined with the mass, 1.0 × 1013 kg, determined by the Radio Science Investigation (RSI) instrument
That's a density of 0.47 Haig. Nowhere near that of rock. You and Sol asked for more data and there it is. Until you have a good explanation for this, discussing any other new data is useless. Pro tip: speculating that Newtonian gravity doesn't apply to comets is a fail, as are non-existent electrostatic effects.

Arm-waving and obfuscation in 3, 2, 1...
ferd's post is dated 23rd January 2015.

It does seem odd that it has taken Sol88 ~3.5 years to get around to posting a few words about how the density of a comet should be estimated, using the ELECTRIC COMET model (I note that by calling it a "model" Sol88 is explicitly contradicting David Talbott, who insisted that it be called a "hypothesis"; however, by using "model", Sol88 has - per David Talbott - explicitly signed up to doing calculations and making quantitative estimates).

I also note that, to his credit, Sol88 has started to discuss the ELECTRIC COMET model recently; in that old thread my impression is that he spent almost every post pointing to what he thought were inconsistencies in "the mainstream" explanations of various cometary phenomena, and deploying the "so the ech MUST be right!" card.
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 Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 07:47 AM   #3619
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,288
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Great post, Sol88!

From what I've read of the ELECTRIC COMET model (or Theory), as posted by you in this thread, I don't see any way to estimate what the charges on any comet will be, at any point in their orbits, from "first principles" shall we say. Nor have you presented anything that looks as if it could be used to estimate the charge on Rosetta, at any point in its orbit.

But the good news is that you should be able to estimate a range for what the charge differences will be!

How?

Here's my suggestion:
1) Start with acknowledging that Rosetta and 67P could have the same charge (i.e. both either negative or both positive) or opposite charges
2) Obtain an estimate of the volume of 67P; from your library of papers that you've cited in this thread, this should be a piece of cake
3) From this, estimate the mass of 67P assuming it to be solid rock; pick a range of densities to include most likely compositions; you'll get a range
4) Using "Newton's law" and "Coulomb's law", derive an expression for q1q2, assuming the force due to the latter is a fraction of the former, say "f". If you need help with this, holler; we're here to help you
5) Derive what q1q2 must be (a range) for the estimated density to be 0.5 (say), assuming that estimated density is derived from "Newton's law" alone
6) Present us with the result (as well as your working)!

You may find that the work Harvey and Bridgman did, as presented in sources which I'm sure you're all too familiar with, helpful. Note that you do NOT have to follow their method(s).


Sol88, you are the one defining, promoting, and defending the ELECTRIC COMET model (not me).

I cannot tell how to apply "Newton's law" and "Coulomb's law" in the case of Rosetta and 67P, within the framework of the ELECTRIC COMET model; you are the only ISF member active here who can.

So, let's see you use the ELECTRIC COMET model to estimate q1q2 (a range)!

Great thats it!!!

Now to complicate things the nucleus and Rosetta are both - & + charged at the same time in a Sunlight/shadow/wake interaction.

Rosetta is + charged on the sunlit side and negative in the wake/shadow. I believe this is what RPC-LAP observed, tusenfem?

Now the nucleus is polarised. This is an effect of a strong ambipolar electric field (my call, they are current carrying double layers), caused by the charge separation of the super sonic solar wind plasma, via it’s eccentric orbital motion. The nucleus is sunlit a few 10’s of Volts positive and ‘000 volts negitve in the shadows/wake. These electric fields along the terminators are strong enough to cause microscopic Coulomb's explosions, “chipping” at the different types of rock present causing the production of ultra fine dust.

Some of this dust will be very fragile electrostatic aggregates, some will be bits of the rock minus any water content. The Coulomb explosions should be energetic enough to flash heat some of the minerals. The electric fields should totally dissociate any material and form fine structured filamentary jets accelerating the negatively charge dust away from the nucleus.

Some of these electric fields along the terminators at times and more likely at more energetic comets, may enter arc mode, these should be connected to outbursts.

Now we should be able to do a little averaging or something but we can make a good estimate of the charge on Rosetta and the distance to the nucleus, we can then estimate mass via compact particle density of around round number for now, 2.0g/cm3. Buckley’s and none on the 80% porosity.

That should be enough parameters to find the charge or capacitance of the nucleus.

How do I do that?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]

Last edited by Sol88; 16th July 2018 at 08:10 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 Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 08:13 AM   #3620
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
That should be enough parameters to find the charge or capacitance of the nucleus.

How do I do that?
Have a look at Harvey's post again. He's already done it for you.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 09:35 AM   #3621
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
These electric fields along the terminators are strong enough to cause microscopic Coulomb's explosions, “chipping” at the different types of rock present causing the production of ultra fine dust.
No, they aren't. Figures, please.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 09:45 AM   #3622
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Now the nucleus is polarised. This is an effect of a strong ambipolar electric field (my call, they are current carrying double layers), caused by the charge separation of the super sonic solar wind plasma, via it’s eccentric orbital motion.
Nope. You just made that up. And why would it not happen to asteroids on eccentric orbits? As I've already mentioned, there is zero science involved with this electric comet nonsense.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 10:59 AM   #3623
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by Sol88
How do I do that?
jd has given you some good advice.

Here's a suggestion (you don't have to accept it, or jd's advice, of course):

As you're totally new to this (mathematics, applying Newton's and Coulomb's laws, estimation, etc) - please correct me if I'm wrong on this - start small and simple.

In physics, you may hear of "spherical cows"; a physicist may treat a cow as spherical. Not because they think cows are, in fact, spherical, but because it's a good "first approximation". Once you understand how spherical cows behave, you can move on to considering more realistic cows.

Your "spherical cow" may be a spherical comet, with a charge of q1; Rosetta is also spherical, with a charge of q2. See how you go using these two first approximations, with Newton's law and with Coulomb's law. Once you're comfortable with this - please share your results! - you may consider how to model something more realistic.

Oh, and have fun!
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 Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 11:02 AM   #3624
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
How do I do that?
Right, let's test what we already know. I'll use Tom Bridgman's results from here:

http://dealingwithcreationisminastro...search?q=comet

Let Q be the charge on the comet, and q be the charge on the spacecraft, in Coulombs.
Tom comes up with 3.65 x 10-4 Coulombs2 for Qq.
Therefore, rearranging, we get: Q = 3.65 x 10-4/ q.

So, we need to find the charge on q (spacecraft). We know the voltage was around -10V, at the time Harvey did his calculation, here:
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/04...comment-432278

So, Harvey gets a capacitance for Rosetta of ~ 1 x 10-9 Farads. If you want to dispute that, you'll need to show why.
So, as Q = CV, then q = 10-9 F x -10V = -10-8 Coulombs.

So, let's get back to Tom's results. As previously shown, Q = 3.65 x 10-4/ q.
So now we can obtain Q (charge on comet) as being 3.65 x 10-4/ -10-8 = -3.65 x 104 Coulombs.
We now need to convert Coulombs into Volts. We therefore need to estimate the capacitance of 67P. Harvey does this and gets 3 x 10-7 F. That looks accurate to me. The capacitance of a sphere is calculated using the formula 4pi ε0 r,
where ε0 is the electric constant; 8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 s4 A2.

So, as Q = CV, we can obtain the voltage by rearranging to give V = Q/C.

So, V = -3.65 X 104 C/ 3 x 10-7 F = ~ -1.2 x 1011 V.

That is 120 gigavolts! As Harvey mentioned, we might have noticed that!

In Tom's calculations, he uses 2000 km/m3 for the EU claimed density, and 400 kg/m3 for the measured density. The measured density is actually ~ 530 kg/m3, so we can reduce the charge a little bit! Not enough to alter the fact that this kind of voltage is impossible, though.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 16th July 2018 at 12:16 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 11:12 AM   #3625
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Right, let's test what we already know. I'll use Tom Bridgman's results from here:

http://dealingwithcreationisminastro...search?q=comet

Let Q be the charge on the comet, and q be the charge on the spacecraft, in Coulombs.
Tom comes up with 3.65 x 10-4 Coulombs for Qq.
Therefore, rearranging, we get: Q = 3.65 x 10-4/ q.

So, we need to find the charge on q (spacecraft). We know the voltage was around -10V, at the time Harvey did his calculation, here:
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/04...comment-432278

So, Harvey gets a capacitance for Rosetta of ~ 1 x 10-9 Farads. If you want to dispute that, you'll need to show why.
So, as Q =CV, then q = 10-9F x -10V = 10-8 Coulombs.

So, let's get back to Tom's results. As previously shown, Q = 3.65 x 10-4/ q.
So now we can obtain Q (charge on comet) as being 3.65 x 10-4/ 10-8 = 3.65 x 104 Coulombs.
We now need to convert Coulombs into Volts. We therefore need to estimate the capacitance of 67P. Harvey does this and gets 3 x 10-7 F. That looks accurate to me. The capacitance of a sphere is calculated using the formula 4pi ε0 r,
where ε0 is the electric constant; 8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 s4 A2.

So, as Q = CV, we can obtain the voltage by rearranging to give V = Q/C.

So, V = 3.65 X 104 C/ 3 x 10-7 F = ~ 1.2 x 1011 V.

That is 120 gigavolts! As Harvey mentioned, we might have noticed that!

In Tom's calculations, he uses 2000 km/m3 for the EU claimed density, and 400 kg/m3 for the measured density. The measured density is actually ~ 530 kg/m3, so we can reduce the charge a little bit! Not enough to alter the fact that this kind of voltage is impossible, though.
You may have a typo (or two) jd:

"Tom comes up with 3.65 x 10-4 Coulombs for Qq" If both Q and q are charges (measured in C), then Qq would be C2, wouldn't it?

Anyway, Sol88: understanding what jd has posted will, I think, help you understand how you might go about doing the calculations you're interested in (I say "might" because you are, of course, free to approach this is a different way).
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 Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 11:49 AM   #3626
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,096
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
You may have a typo (or two) jd:

"Tom comes up with 3.65 x 10-4 Coulombs for Qq" If both Q and q are charges (measured in C), then Qq would be C2, wouldn't it?
True. Tom left it out of his main text, but uses it in the graphic. However, it doesn't alter the outcome of the required charges on the comet. I probably missed a - sign out somewhere, as well.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 01:49 PM   #3627
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,476
Thumbs down Irrelevant Rosetta & 67P charging to derail from his electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Now to complicate things the nucleus and Rosetta are both - & + charged at the same time in a Sunlight/shadow/wake interaction.
17 July 2018: Irrelevant Rosetta & 67P charging to derail from his electric comet insanity.

What Bridgman and Harvey show is that the comet needs 35 GeV to make its density rock in the in situ measurement which agrees with other measurements that the density is < water.

11 July 2018: Simply lies and more insults to derail from his many comet delusions.
11 July 2018: Yet another lie about Bridgman and Harvey's calculation.

Nothing to do with:
Sol88's 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, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
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 Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 06:37 PM   #3628
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,288
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Right, let's test what we already know. I'll use Tom Bridgman's results from here:

http://dealingwithcreationisminastro...search?q=comet

Let Q be the charge on the comet, and q be the charge on the spacecraft, in Coulombs.
Tom comes up with 3.65 x 10-4 Coulombs2 for Qq.
Therefore, rearranging, we get: Q = 3.65 x 10-4/ q.

So, we need to find the charge on q (spacecraft). We know the voltage was around -10V, at the time Harvey did his calculation, here:
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/04...comment-432278

So, Harvey gets a capacitance for Rosetta of ~ 1 x 10-9 Farads. If you want to dispute that, you'll need to show why.
So, as Q = CV, then q = 10-9 F x -10V = -10-8 Coulombs.

So, let's get back to Tom's results. As previously shown, Q = 3.65 x 10-4/ q.
So now we can obtain Q (charge on comet) as being 3.65 x 10-4/ -10-8 = -3.65 x 104 Coulombs.
We now need to convert Coulombs into Volts. We therefore need to estimate the capacitance of 67P. Harvey does this and gets 3 x 10-7 F. That looks accurate to me. The capacitance of a sphere is calculated using the formula 4pi ε0 r,
where ε0 is the electric constant; 8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 s4 A2.

So, as Q = CV, we can obtain the voltage by rearranging to give V = Q/C.

So, V = -3.65 X 104 C/ 3 x 10-7 F = ~ -1.2 x 1011 V.

That is 120 gigavolts! As Harvey mentioned, we might have noticed that!

In Tom's calculations, he uses 2000 km/m3 for the EU claimed density, and 400 kg/m3 for the measured density. The measured density is actually ~ 530 kg/m3, so we can reduce the charge a little bit! Not enough to alter the fact that this kind of voltage is impossible, though.

Which gives a voltage on 67P from Q/C of around 35 GIGAVOLTS.


35 or 120 gigavolts, jd116? That's plenty to trip the flux capacitor!

reckon that would be enough 'grunt' to cause electrostatic repulsion on a microscopic scale, liberating "dust" and water from the rock that is the nucleus of comets!

What make you reject his findings?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
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 Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 07:04 PM   #3629
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,476
Thumbs down Still cannot understand the insanity of 67P with a voltage of 35 or 120 GIGAVOLTS

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
19 July 2018: Still cannot understand the insanity of 67P with a voltage of 35 or 120 GIGAVOLTS

One last time. Say this voltage attracts protons. The solar wind contains protons. These protons will be attracted to 67P. They will arrive at 67P with energies around 35 or 120 GIGAVOLTS. That is protons with energies of 35 or 120 GIGAVOLTS colliding with
  • the nucleus atoms,
  • the coma atoms,
  • and the Rosetta spacecraft atoms
His insanity of 35 or 120 GIGAVOLTS creates a weaker Large Hadron Collider (GeV instead of Tev ) ! The collisions will create particles and anti-particles. Their annihilation will produce distinctive radiation, We do not detect that radiation.

A rational person would have to wonder what the effect would be on the Rosetta spacecraft. I suspect that Rosetta would not be physically destroyed by the collisions. But Rosetta has electronics that could be destroyed by the radiation.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th July 2018 at 07:06 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 Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 07:32 PM   #3630
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,288
What Harvey did not take into account and DOES change is napkin calculation is the following.

Quote:
The third term, the ambipolar electric field E ambipolar , is expected to be significant close to the nucleus. At zero order, this electric field points radially outward from the nucleus. It might be one of the reasons why close to the nucleus the modelled proton trajectories in Figure 7 depart from the observed velocity vectors. Another e.ect arising from the ambipolar term is a polarisation electric field due to the di.erent motion of the cometary new-born electrons and ions. The gyroradius of the cometary ions can be much larger than the interaction region, itself larger than the cometary electron gyroradius, which induces a charge separation, and in turn a polarisation electric field. This electric field contribution is explored in the analytical work of Nilsson et al. (2018), and results in one additional acceleration of the cometary ions with an anti-sunward component.


Looking at what the nucleus, it could be model as a polarised dielectric sphere whose properties change in conjunction with the variable ambipolar electric field.


this pic of a polarised of dielectric sphere is interesting. Look at those streamline, they look familiar


So we can work of few more equations and assumption into the calculation, run that bad boy see what we come up with?

Charge 1 C = Rosetta
Charge2 C = 67P
Force N = known
Distance km = Known

We should get what we are after?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
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 Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 08:22 PM   #3631
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,476
Thumbs down A lying post about the Harvey debunking of his electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What Harvey did not take into account ....
19 July 2018: A lying post about the Harvey debunking of his electric comet insanity

The presence of an ambipolar electric field has nothing to do with a back of envelope calculation of the effects of a charges Rosetta spacecraft and 67P nucleus.

Nothing to do with:
Sol88's 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, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
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 Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 08:23 PM   #3632
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,476
Thumbs down Stupidity of an uncited quote to derail from his electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
... is the following.
19 July 2018: Stupidity of an uncited quote to derail from his electric comet insanity

Stupid because this is probably from an ices and dust comet paper where the "new-born electrons and ions" are sublimated gases disassociating.

Nothing to do with:
Sol88's 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, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th July 2018 at 08:26 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 Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 08:35 PM   #3633
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,476
Thumbs down Modeling a comet delusions from an ignorant believer in the electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Looking at what the nucleus, it could be model ...
Modeling a comet delusions from an ignorant believer in the electric comet insanity.

Here is a person unable to understand simple arithmetic (0.6 is not 3.0 g/cc) or the physics used to measure comet density, etc. They want to do physics when they have been incapable of understanding physics for 9 years now!
Also: Over 3 years of the fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

A crazy question at the end expecting that people who know how insane his electric comet is to do calculations to support that insanity !

Sol88's 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, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th July 2018 at 08:36 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 Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 11:12 PM   #3634
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,288
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

Quote:
Another effect arising from the ambipolar term is a polarisation electric field due to the different motion of the cometary new-born electrons and ions.
The root of a comet tail - Rosetta ion observations at comet 67P/Churyumov--Gerasimenko E. Behar, H. Nilsson, P. Henri, L. Bercic, G. Nicolaou, G. Stenberg Wieser, M. Wieser, B. Tabone, M. Saillenfest, C. Goetz

It's not magic old mate, just never been applied at a comet!

Polarisation electric field, google it!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
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 Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 11:14 PM   #3635
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,288
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
19 July 2018: Still cannot understand the insanity of 67P with a voltage of 35 or 120 GIGAVOLTS

One last time. Say this voltage attracts protons. The solar wind contains protons. These protons will be attracted to 67P. They will arrive at 67P with energies around 35 or 120 GIGAVOLTS. That is protons with energies of 35 or 120 GIGAVOLTS colliding with
  • the nucleus atoms,
  • the coma atoms,
  • and the Rosetta spacecraft atoms
His insanity of 35 or 120 GIGAVOLTS creates a weaker Large Hadron Collider (GeV instead of Tev ) ! The collisions will create particles and anti-particles. Their annihilation will produce distinctive radiation, We do not detect that radiation.

A rational person would have to wonder what the effect would be on the Rosetta spacecraft. I suspect that Rosetta would not be physically destroyed by the collisions. But Rosetta has electronics that could be destroyed by the radiation.
Who came up with 120 GIGAVOLTS?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Usual lies about ices and dust comet papers (bedrock is not actual rock). [Reality Check, 2 May 2018]
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 Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 04:39 AM   #3636
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,410
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

this pic of a polarised of dielectric sphere is interesting. Look at those streamline, they look familiar
http://i64.tinypic.com/x6hbtf.jpg

So we can work of few more equations and assumption into the calculation, run that bad boy see what we come up with?

Charge 1 C = Rosetta
Charge2 C = 67P
Force N = known
Distance km = Known

We should get what we are after?
First you should show that that pic indeed describes the situation around a comet. I think you have a false impression of what a polarization electric field is.
You talk about "stream lines" whereas what you see is electric field lines in which a sphere of dielectric material is placed.
__________________
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

Last edited by tusenfem; 19th July 2018 at 04:41 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 05:04 AM   #3637
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Who came up with 120 GIGAVOLTS?
Anybody that can do maths will come up with it. Try it.

Quote:
What Harvey did not take into account and DOES change is napkin calculation is the following.
No, he didn't. It is irrelevant to the calculation. Your lack of knowledge of such things is telling, and is obviously one of the reasons why a vanishingly small number of people believe in this electric comet rubbish. Correct? To believe it requires a staggering ignorance of maths and science. As shown.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 05:11 AM   #3638
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
So we can work of few more equations and assumption into the calculation, run that bad boy see what we come up with?
Errrm, it has been done. Twice, and linked, by people far smarter than you, or anybody else involved with this nonsense. The result shows it to be impossible. Now, go away, and learn some science, yes?
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 05:21 AM   #3639
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
So we can work of few more equations and assumption into the calculation,
Which calculation? What equation are you using? Where did you get it from? Show us it, instead of spouting irrelevant nonsense. Just for once.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 01:38 PM   #3640
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,476
Question Where are the ʻOumuamua jets, coma and tails predicted by your electric comet

13 July 2018 Sol88: Where are the ʻOumuamua jets, coma and tails predicted by your electric comet?
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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 05:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.