ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th December 2018, 12:40 AM   #1161
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Quote:
So comets are mostly charged DUST then? So cometary nuclei are charged bodies of MOSTLY DUST?
Stop being stupid. The vast majority of dust is WITHIN the comet. How would it get charged? Jesus H. Christ, this is like discussing QM with a baboon.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 12:48 AM   #1162
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Quote:
So, where are we now with the electric comet 'model'? What have we learned after over a decade of this woo being spammed around various fora on the internet? Let's break it down to its most fundamental claims, as per the Thornhill & Talbott poster from 2006;

Comets are rocks, blasted from planets by unknown electric woo.
Leaving aside the scientifically impossible mechanisms described to achieve this, we need only look at the composition of planets and moons, and at the composition of comets, and do a comparison. Earth, Mars, Mercury and Venus; all rock with high density. Comets; highly porous mixture of dust (fluffy and compact), ice and organics, with very low density.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

Comets are merely asteroids on elliptical orbits.
Any cursory examination of the many asteroids on elliptical orbits shows this to be wrong.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

The jets observed are electric discharges to (from?) the nucleus.
Electric discharges would show up in the magnetometer data. There was nothing. The jets are observed to be gas, dust and, sometimes, ice.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

There is little to no ice, and the water observed is actually OH.
Water has been definitively detected at comets since 1986. So that was a lie.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

The OH (H2O?) that is observed is due to solar wind H+ combining with O-.
Impossible. The H+ ions are far too energetic to combine with anything.
There is nowhere near enough H+ to explain even 1 litre of water per second.
There is little to no O-.
The solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus for about 8 months around perihelion.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.

Those are the fundamental building blocks underlying the electric comet model. Verdict? It fails. Horribly, and indisputably. The electric comet model was stillborn. It was never alive, and nobody has come close to zapping its stinking corpse with 50 000 volts to bring it to life. It is a miserable, neo-Velikovskian heap of trash, dreamed up by unqualified woo merchants. It is a joke. It isn't worthy of our attention
.

Still waiting.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

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

Last edited by jonesdave116; 6th December 2018 at 12:50 AM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 01:22 AM   #1163
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,405
Sol88, I think you would do better if you dropped the idea that EC must be right if the scientific understanding of comets is wrong (although as I can see it, at present it is more a question of the scientific understanding being not completely right, like all scientific understanding).

This is a thread about EC and SAFIRE. What about addressing this, and concentrate on the actual problems with EC. You could start by disassociate yourself from those elements of Thornhill's EC that are obviously wrong, if you think there are any. How about taking jonesdave116's list and tell us what is right and what is wrong in this list?
__________________
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 6th December 2018, 01:22 AM   #1164
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,779
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Stop being stupid. The vast majority of dust is WITHIN the comet. How would it get charged? Jesus H. Christ, this is like discussing QM with a baboon.

I thought you were of the opinion that at 75% porosity that the majority of the comet nucleus was vacuum? The rest being refractory dust with a minimal component of "ice".

Anywhoo there appears to be dust of varying sizes on the surface and this is charged, this is a dusty plasma!

Do you agree?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 01:25 AM   #1165
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I thought you were of the opinion that at 75% porosity that the majority of the comet nucleus was vacuum? The rest being refractory dust with a minimal component of "ice".

Anywhoo there appears to be dust of varying sizes on the surface and this is charged, this is a dusty plasma!

Do you agree?
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with the EC idiocy. Show us where the idiot Thornhill discusses charged dust. There shouldn't be any according to that loon. Discuss why your woo has totally failed.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 01:46 AM   #1166
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,779
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Sol88, I think you would do better if you dropped the idea that EC must be right if the scientific understanding of comets is wrong (although as I can see it, at present it is more a question of the scientific understanding being not completely right, like all scientific understanding).

This is a thread about EC and SAFIRE. What about addressing this, and concentrate on the actual problems with EC. You could start by disassociate yourself from those elements of Thornhill's EC that are obviously wrong, if you think there are any. How about taking jonesdave116's list and tell us what is right and what is wrong in this list?
G'day steenkh

Perhaps you like to read The effect of asymmetric surface topography on dust dynamics on airless bodies

Understand that the dust at a comet nucleus, at least the surface, is charged and that there is an ambipolar electric field in operation at a comet! On the ion-neutral coupling in cometary comae doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2869

And that the comet is mostly dust, refractory dust with a minimal ice content!
The refractory-to-ice mass ratio in comets
Quote:
This constraint
confirms that comets can be defined as “mineral organices” (Fulle et al. 2016b), i.e. a mixture of minerals and organics with a minor mass fraction of ices mixed among them, and provides a disentangling test for all models describing the (probably common) origin of comets and KBOs.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 01:50 AM   #1167
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
G'day steenkh

Perhaps you like to read The effect of asymmetric surface topography on dust dynamics on airless bodies

Understand that the dust at a comet nucleus, at least the surface, is charged and that there is an ambipolar electric field in operation at a comet! On the ion-neutral coupling in cometary comae doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2869

And that the comet is mostly dust, refractory dust with a minimal ice content!
The refractory-to-ice mass ratio in comets
And none of that has any relevance whatsoever to the electric comet idiocy.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 04:45 AM   #1168
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,779
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Sol88, I think you would do better if you dropped the idea that EC must be right if the scientific understanding of comets is wrong (although as I can see it, at present it is more a question of the scientific understanding being not completely right, like all scientific understanding).

This is a thread about EC and SAFIRE. What about addressing this, and concentrate on the actual problems with EC. You could start by disassociate yourself from those elements of Thornhill's EC that are obviously wrong, if you think there are any. How about taking jonesdave116's list and tell us what is right and what is wrong in this list?
Already have, few pages back now.

I think there are a few bits and pieces that need revising, such as,ELECTROSTATIC CLEANING
Quote:
The surface of Tempel 1 contrasts with the surface of the asteroid Itokawa (right). The asteroid appears to have attracted considerable surface debris electrostatically. We suggested an active comet will do the reverse.
http://thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf



Oh, no scrap that,Wal’s is on the money, especially if there is an ambipolar electric field in operation on at comets. Probably accelerates the dust of the nucleus but depending on charge could attract as well. Does sublimation do this?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...573?via%3Dihub
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]

Last edited by Sol88; 6th December 2018 at 04:56 AM.
Sol88 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 05:14 AM   #1169
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Quote:
Already have, few pages back now.
Nope, never happened. You just crossed it out and ignored it. Because you have no explanation for the complete failure of this woo.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 05:17 AM   #1170
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,779
Quote:
There is little to no ice, and the water observed is actually OH.
Water has been definitively detected at comets since 1986. So that was a lie.
Therefore the electric comet model fails.
https://youtu.be/O1f99ReNJVw

Couldn’t have said it any better myself.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 05:19 AM   #1171
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,779
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Nope, never happened. You just crossed it out and ignored it. Because you have no explanation for the complete failure of this woo.
Is the dust charged? = yes

Is the an electric field centred on the nucleus = yes



I’m
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 05:19 AM   #1172
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Quote:
Oh, no scrap that,Wal’s is on the money
No, the idiot got every single thing about comets wrong. He was lying to you
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 05:21 AM   #1173
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Is the dust charged? = yes

Is the an electric field centred on the nucleus = yes



I’m
Which is of no relevance whatsoever to what I wrote. Stop lying and deal with it.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 05:23 AM   #1174
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
https://youtu.be/O1f99ReNJVw

Couldn’t have said it any better myself.
I'm not watching lying EU crap on YT. He deliberately lied to you. Tempel 1 killed this rubbish. You cannot impact rock and produce water ice. Scientifically impossible.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

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

Last edited by jonesdave116; 6th December 2018 at 05:28 AM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 06:11 AM   #1175
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
I'm not watching lying EU crap on YT. He deliberately lied to you. Tempel 1 killed this rubbish. You cannot impact rock and produce water ice. Scientifically impossible.
So, I relented and watched this crap. As predicted it was more lying and impossible mechanisms. There was no electric discharge. Such a thing would have been seen by Chandra and SWIFT. It didn't happen. And the electrochemical stuff is pure woo. The solar wind is combining with nothing at that speed. How are you getting solid ice? Lol. And why did they wait 7-8 years after the detection of the ice to comment on it? Retrospective lying, after somebody likely pointed it out to him.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:00 AM   #1176
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Thanks jt

Where would one get the best information on the mainstream model of comets?

You know like the one you are referencing?

NASA?
ESA?

Surely not wiki?

The latest model of course, not the Dirtysnowball model of comets as mostly ice sublimating under the warmth of the Sun.

Seems i’ve been under the wrong impression for 12 odd years now...

Feel like a bit of a goose and would like to study on the CURRENT mainstream model of comets.

Is that a reasonable request?
No. Not now, not ever.

We are, in this thread, discussing the Electric Comet Theory (or model, EC for short).

It is very hard to have such a discussion, partly because of your obsession with the logical fallacy False Dichotomy, but, these days, mostly because you keep contradicting yourself, sometimes more than once in the same day!

For example, one day it’s ROCK, with a bulk density of ~3-5; next day it’s mostly space with ROCK in between. One day it’s charging and discharging in a radial electric field centered on the Sun; next day it’s kinetic plasma effects local to the comet. And so on. And on. And on ...

But whatever it is, it resembles religion more than science.

Long since past time to close this thread, or more it to a more suitable board. Admins: please do so.
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 6th December 2018, 09:16 AM   #1177
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,417
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So the best the brains here can come up with is blah blah blah whinge whinge whinge...ad nuseum

When actual pressed to present their NEW non dirtysnowball model the Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model of comets envisioned as mostly ice, we hear crickets.

And when A'Hearn said HIS understanding was EVOLVING toward mainly ROCK, we came up with some convoluted excuse he did not mean actual ROCK but a mixture of ICES and DUST, this is still just the first quantitative model of comets, the DIRTYSNOWBALL.

Now, everyone here has agreed A'Hearn is wrong and Whipple is also WRONG. So that leaves no model for the mainstream.

I understand science EVOLVES as new data becomes available and the new data is lending more weight to A'Hearn's understanding that Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice may not be the correct interpretation of said data.

There are quite a few papers out there that directly contradict each other or omit facts that leave them stumped on exactly what's going on.

It's been a real hoot to watch Jonesdave116 and Reality Check loudly and proudly proclaim ROCK is not actual ROCK...

Bugger sorry RC, my error it's not the DIRTYSNOWBALL any more it's the DIRTY Snowball!

Science evolving! love it.

I would think the market for electric comet fan fiction is rather limited. Still, best of luck.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz
"A target doesn't need to be preselected"-Jabba
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 02:34 PM   #1178
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,779
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
So, I relented and watched this crap. As predicted it was more lying and impossible mechanisms. There was no electric discharge. Such a thing would have been seen by Chandra and SWIFT. It didn't happen. And the electrochemical stuff is pure woo. The solar wind is combining with nothing at that speed. How are you getting solid ice? Lol. And why did they wait 7-8 years after the detection of the ice to comment on it? Retrospective lying, after somebody likely pointed it out to him.
Yawn, we don’t need no hidden pure ice invoked to be at depth inside a comet (which actually should raise some serious questions in self wrt density) the EC just needs water vapour.

Quote:
5. Conclusion [17] Our results demonstrate that ice grains spontaneously form in a suitably cooled plasma containing water vapor. No external nucleation material is required, i.e., homogeneous ionic nucleation takes place. Furthermore, the ice grains are aspherical when the background pressure is lower than a certain pressure and presumably this aspherical shape develops soonafter nucleation rather thanlater when the grains arelarge. This result implies that it is plausible that aspherical ice grains are commoninnaturally occurring plasmas (Saturn’s rings, polar mesosphere clouds, and molecular clouds) in which case existing modelsassuming spherical grains wouldhave toberevised. This is important because ellipsoidal grains will have significantly different interactions with electromagnetic radiation in terms of effective cross section and in terms of how scattered light depends on the polarization of incident light [Holland and Gagne, 1970]. In particular, just as long chaff scatters radar most efficiently, highly elongated grains will provide much stronger scattering of electromagnetic radiation than the same mass arranged in a sphere.
Spontaneous formation of nonspherical water ice grains in a plasma environment doi:10.1002/2013GL058268

1um pure ice grains....??


As far as I can tell, no one here as an issue with the findings from the deep impact experiment in which hydrated minerals were found. Also the impact would vaporised the hydrated minerals, total dissociating the constitute molecules.

You would also notice they would tend to line up with an electric field, such as the one in operation at comets. You would also note the latest papers suggest the dust at 67p is also elongate and responding to the ambipolar electric field.

One would also note Dr Anariba’s electrochemical water production needs a potential difference, a driving voltage for it to be even considered.

So looks like it’s a common process for the formation of water ice grains. Well done mainstream science.

Now, jd116, jt, Fred, what say Ye to this evidence? Again.

Frost patch’s on 67p anyone?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]

Last edited by Sol88; 6th December 2018 at 02:38 PM.
Sol88 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 02:41 PM   #1179
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Quote:
Yawn, we don’t need no hidden pure ice invoked to be at depth inside a comet (which actually should raise some serious questions in self wrt density) the EC just needs water vapour.
And you have no mechanism to get water vapour, nor how to turn it into ice. Only an idiot would believe that. Do you believe it Sol? I expect you do.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 02:42 PM   #1180
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Quote:
As far as I can tell, no one here as an issue with the findings from the deep impact experiment in which hydrated minerals were found. Also the impact would vaporised the hydrated minerals, total dissociating the constitute molecules.
Errr, far too hot. You need ~ 600 C to bake water out of hydrated minerals. The ice and water at Tempel 1 was well below that. Idiotic argument. Try again.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 02:43 PM   #1181
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Quote:
One would also note Dr Anariba’s electrochemical water production needs a potential difference, a driving voltage for it to be even considered.
Anariba is a proven idiot.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 02:45 PM   #1182
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Quote:
Now, jd116, jt, Fred, what say Ye to this evidence? Again.
There is no evidence. And the suggested mechanism is complete and utter crap. Could only have been made up by scientifically illiterate idiots. That is, Thornhill & Talbott.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 02:47 PM   #1183
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,779
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
No. Not now, not ever.

We are, in this thread, discussing the Electric Comet Theory (or model, EC for short).

It is very hard to have such a discussion, partly because of your obsession with the logical fallacy False Dichotomy, but, these days, mostly because you keep contradicting yourself, sometimes more than once in the same day!

For example, one day it’s ROCK, with a bulk density of ~3-5; next day it’s mostly space with ROCK in between. One day it’s charging and discharging in a radial electric field centered on the Sun; next day it’s kinetic plasma effects local to the comet. And so on. And on. And on ...

But whatever it is, it resembles religion more than science.

Long since past time to close this thread, or more it to a more suitable board. Admins: please do so.
Yeah, nah I’m sticking to comets being MOSTLY actual real ROCK ~2.5gm/cm3 of which a majority seems to be, in the case of Tempel 1 hydrated minerals, carbonates at refractory materials.

My question to you cob, if a comet is ~25% mostly dust with a minor mass component of “ice” then what exactly constitutes the other 75%?

__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 02:49 PM   #1184
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,779
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
And you have no mechanism to get water vapour, nor how to turn it into ice. Only an idiot would believe that. Do you believe it Sol? I expect you do.
Can’t you read or something? The impact was the mechanism and water vapour just does that ***** spontaneously?



Of course it wouldn’t register in your indoctrinated grey matter.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 02:50 PM   #1185
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Quote:
Yeah, nah I’m sticking to comets being MOSTLY actual real ROCK ~2.5gm/cm3 of which a majority seems to be, in the case of Tempel 1 hydrated minerals, carbonates at refractory materials.
Which has been proven 100% to be wrong. So who gives a damn what an unqualified wooist thinks? And, as has already been explained, the porosity is ~ 75%.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 02:52 PM   #1186
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,779
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Errr, far too hot. You need ~ 600 C to bake water out of hydrated minerals. The ice and water at Tempel 1 was well below that. Idiotic argument. Try again.
Sorry perhaps you like to find the relevant temp recorded at Tempel 1 for the impact of the copper projectile into solid rock.

I’ve seen 3500K, is that hot enough for you?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 02:54 PM   #1187
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Sorry perhaps you like to find the relevant temp recorded at Tempel 1 for the impact of the copper projectile into solid rock.

I’ve seen 3500K, is that hot enough for you?
Jesus H. Christ. How are you turning water at 3500 K into ice? Stop being stupid. Just for a change.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 02:56 PM   #1188
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,779
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Which has been proven 100% to be wrong. So who gives a damn what an unqualified wooist thinks? And, as has already been explained, the porosity is ~ 75%.
So this is bull?
Quote:
One of the observers was the Spitzer Space Telescope, a NASA mission that takes pictures in the infrared part of the spectrum. In the burst of light after the collision, Spitzer detected specific colors of infrared light that indicated that Tempel 1 contained clays and carbonates, the minerals of limestone and seashells.

Clays and carbonates both require liquid water to form.

"How do clays and carbonates form in frozen comets where there isn't liquid water?" said Carey M. Lisse, a research scientist at the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University who is presenting the Spitzer data today at a meeting of the Division for Planetary Sciences in Cambridge, England. "Nobody expected this."

Spitzer also detected minerals known as crystalline silicates. Astronomers had already known that comets contain silicates, but silicates line up in neat crystal structures only when they are warmed to 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit -- temperatures reached at around the orbit of Mercury -- and then cooled.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 03:00 PM   #1189
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So this is bull?
Totally irrelevant. Nothing to do with the density or porosity. Try to learn science. You are making a tool of yourself. Again.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 03:01 PM   #1190
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,779
So at Tempel 1, you had the above solid rocky constituents with a invoked minor mass fraction of ice at ~25% total volume what constitutes the other 75%?

Because even someone like me with 0 maths skills can see comets are mostly...what jd116?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 03:03 PM   #1191
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So at Tempel 1, you had the above solid rocky constituents with a invoked minor mass fraction of ice at ~25% total volume what constitutes the other 75%?

Because even someone like me with 0 maths skills can see comets are mostly...what jd116?
I've just told you. It is ~ 75% porous. Comprende? As evidenced by the density. And the measurements from MUPUS, etc. I am not going through this crap again with someone who has the memory of a bloody firefly. Read the literature.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 03:04 PM   #1192
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,779
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Totally irrelevant. Nothing to do with the density or porosity. Try to learn science. You are making a tool of yourself. Again.
Perhaps you should put the shovel down, champ!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 03:06 PM   #1193
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,779
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
I've just told you. It is ~ 75% porous. Comprende? As evidenced by the density. And the measurements from MUPUS, etc. I am not going through this crap again with someone who has the memory of a bloody firefly. Read the literature.
No this is for the direct benefit of Jean Tate.

What constitutes the majority of a cometary nucleus jd116?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 03:08 PM   #1194
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Perhaps you should put the shovel down, champ!
Why? You are demonstrably scientifically illiterate. You believe idiots like Thornhill! Lol.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 03:10 PM   #1195
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Quote:
What constitutes the majority of a cometary nucleus jd116?
Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume. What are you talking about? Do you know? Does anybody? Bloody unlikely, I'd say.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 03:11 PM   #1196
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yeah, nah I’m sticking to comets being MOSTLY actual real ROCK ~2.5gm/cm3 of which a majority seems to be, in the case of Tempel 1 hydrated minerals, carbonates at refractory materials.

My question to you cob, if a comet is ~25% mostly dust with a minor mass component of “ice” then what exactly constitutes the other 75%?

Yet another, rather dramatic, shifting of the basics of EC.

Can you present a quantitative case for consistency between your latest version of EC, and relevant quantitative observational results, on the density of comets?

I think the answer is “no”. Yet another reason to move this thread to a more appropriate home in ISF.
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 6th December 2018, 03:12 PM   #1197
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Thumbs down Usual blatant lies to derail from Sol88's electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
We are reading from the same page.
Usual blatant lies to derail from Sol88's electric comet insanity.

I am not reading from Sol88's insane electric comet playbook. Sol88 lies. I wrote:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Usual irrelevant and insanely lying questions to derail from derail from Sol88's electric comet insanity.

My post has no charged dust.

We have been through Sol88's "charged dust" insanity before. The vast bulk of a comet is ices and neutral dust under the surface. Comets with low activity may have some charged dust on their surface. Comets should have a temporary relatively tiny amount of charged dust on their surface.
Comet 67P had a temporary (when it was far from the Sun), relatively tiny amount of charged dust on its surface.
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 6th December 2018, 03:12 PM   #1198
Sol88
Illuminator
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,779
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume. What are you talking about? Do you know? Does anybody? Bloody unlikely, I'd say.
Thank you.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Dust, if you are talking about mass. Vacuum if you are talking about volume.[Jonesdave116 7/12/18]
Sol88 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 03:14 PM   #1199
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Yet another, rather dramatic, shifting of the basics of EC.

Can you present a quantitative case for consistency between your latest version of EC, and relevant quantitative observational results, on the density of comets?

I think the answer is “no”. Yet another reason to move this thread to a more appropriate home in ISF.
Agreed. Is there a section entitled 'idiotic woo trolling'?

EDIT;
JW's idiotic stellar metamorphosis woo is nothing more than pseudoscience spam, as well. Should also take a hike.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

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

Last edited by jonesdave116; 6th December 2018 at 03:16 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 03:16 PM   #1200
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Thumbs down Usual insanity from Sol88's insane electric comet playbook.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
One would also have to wonder what effect the ambiploar electric field would have on this charged dust on the surface of comets?
Usual insanity from Sol88's insane electric comet playbook.

The mainstream ambiploar electric field is not his insanity. It is standard plasma physics within 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
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 02:44 PM.
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.