IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 21st July 2020, 01:16 PM   #81
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,653
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Interesting. Rather than addressing the glaring mutually exclusive assumptions needed to begin making your theory work you choose to put a strawman assumption in my mouth.

So again. Is the solar wind composed of equal amounts positive and negative charges as you claim in your quasi neutral plama assumptions, in which case the sun must be neutral? Or is the sun positively charged as you also claim, in which case the solar wind must be negatively charged?

And have the electrons in the solar escaped, as you claim? In which case the proposed electric field for the EC cannot reach comets when thet are active. Or does the proposed electric field extend throughout the solar system as you have claimed ? In which case you need to explain why the electrons in the solar wind do not respond to said proposed field.

It's not my fault you proposed mutually exlusive explanations to solve non existent problems.
Not my claim that the solar wind is quasi neutral.


It’s only quasi neutral to make your math a little easier.


Do the electrons and ions all move at the same speed? Have the same energy? Same mass?





Long as the math is easy....
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 01:22 PM   #82
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,653
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
No, you just do not understand the physics. You don't understand when it is okay to use MHD and when you have to go kinetic. You want to do everything kinetic, that is fine, I assume you use the general theory of releativity to calculate how long it takes for an apple to fall down from the tree to the ground, that's fine with me, but I'd rather use Newtonian physics.



Yes, card games, board games, but not so fond of computer games.



Which new papers?
And what should I review?
Please go in depth, the whole shebang, you might get co-authorship.
And while you are at it, send me a fully descriptive electric comet theory.

Your maths is very complicated and is very computationally expensive.

At this stage we are still dealing with assumptions...

The ELECTRIC COMET has a whole lot of assumptions that are not reconcilable with the Dirtysnowball assumptions.


The dust being charged via electron impact ionisation is a game changer here....


Streams (jets) of charged dust being removed from the nucleus.

Do you concede some of the assumption made in the ‘50’s may indeed be incorrect?

I mean, Ben this statement is a real doozie
Quote:
The notion that space is considered to be a vacuum filled with an "aether", or just a cold, dark vacuum continued up until the 1950s (see below).
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 01:49 PM   #83
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Your maths is very complicated and is very computationally expensive.

At this stage we are still dealing with assumptions...

The ELECTRIC COMET has a whole lot of assumptions that are not reconcilable with the Dirtysnowball assumptions.


The dust being charged via electron impact ionisation is a game changer here....


Streams (jets) of charged dust being removed from the nucleus.

Do you concede some of the assumption made in the ‘50’s may indeed be incorrect?

I mean, Ben this statement is a real doozie
(my hilite)

I assume that by "The ELECTRIC COMET" you mean The Electric Comet Theory, the main topic of this thread.

Do you?

If so, where can one read what those assumptions are? A primary source please.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 09:23 PM   #84
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying, etc. about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies with "Well j=0, MHD (your frozen in magnetic field)... " when he knows that that approximation is used appropriately in space plasma.
Sol88 lies with "1/r law for the outgassing" when that is not used. Astronomers sometimes treat the outgassing of a comet as having spherical symmetry.
Sol88 lies with "lead you down the garden path" lie. We know that comets have "loads of ice" because they emit loads of gas from sublimating ice.
Sol88 lies with "electrons seems to be treated like the poor cousin" lie when he has cited many papers about electrons at comets.
Sol88 lies with mainstream "complex non linear behavior that is plasma" that he and his cult totally ignores.

Last edited by Reality Check; 21st July 2020 at 09:24 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 09:35 PM   #85
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 tells the truth for once ("You are under the assumption I am trying to convince you") ! He is obviously here to convince the world that he will lie about posts, posters and science, emphasize how bad his cult's dogma is, write deep ignorance about science, and make up ignorant fantasies forever and forever. The thousands of lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.

Sol88 lies with "the solar wind being a perfect conductor" when the solar wind is a very good conductor. That physical fact is part of what makes his cult's dogma into delusions (no thunderbolts in plasma).
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 21st July 2020, 09:42 PM   #86
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies with "frozen in magnetic field liberally" when that is a valid approximation in plasma physics.
Sol88 lies by citing mainstream ice and dust cometary science
Current sheets in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko’s coma
Currents in Cometary Comae
Sol88 still lies with "rocky like comets discharging dust electrically". Landslides on comet 67P =have rocky like behavior. The solar wind can electrostatically eject dust. Electric discharges as in his cult's thunderbolts are physically impossible in plasma.
Sol88 lies with "You got anything on dusty plasmas, like the ones at 67P?". This is mainstream plasma science unrelated to his cult's dogma.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 10:36 PM   #87
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies with "Talking about discharging..." and citing nothing about electric discharges.
Currents in Cometary Comae
Quote:
Also, large spikes were observed in the MAG data, which are interpreted as flux ropes created by reconnection of the CME magnetic field and that draped around the nucleus. In Fig. 9BB an example of such a structure is shown in minimum variance coordinates [Sonnerup and Scheible, 1998], which has the classical characteristics of a flux rope, which means that there is a strong current flowing along the centre of the tube.
Magnetic reconnection is not his cult's delusion of electric discharges in plasma. An electric current is not his cult's delusion of electric discharges in plasma.

Another of the cult's delusions is that magnetic reconnection does not exist despite it being textbook plasma physics observed in Nature and experiments. Look at this deluded web page with "One such case is magnetic reconnection—one of the best examples in modern physics of ad hoc theorizing when there are no witnesses.". This is Stephen Smith with a delusion that scientists just make stuff up from theory and another delusion hat magnetic reconnection experiment do not exist.

Donald E. Scott wrote a crank 2007 paper (PDF. He started with plasma cosmology which was invalid for decades. A lie that heliospheres are "DL cells". .The thickness of a double layer is of the order of ten Debye lengths which is 10 meters and the heliosphere is ~121 AU in radius ! A lie that PC computer models reproduced spiral galaxies. A lie that PC predicted the existence of galactic jets. Then
  • No one says that magnetic field lines are real objects.
    Magnetic field lines are a map of magnetic fields, analogous to contour lines on a map,
  • A few astronomers treat some magnetic fields as open ended which is a valid, justified approximation.
    This is not literally open ended as he quotes!
    “The IMF originates in regions on the Sun where the magnetic field is ‘open’—that is, where field lines emerging from one region do not return to a conjugate region but extend virtually indefinitely into space [9].”
  • The behavior of magnetic fields can be explained without any
    reference to the currents that produce them.
    Magnetic fields do not need a current to exist - electrons have a magnetic moment, bar magnets do not have currents.
  • No one says that cosmic plasma is infinitely conductive.
    There is the frozen in approximation that is applied to some cosmic plasmas where the conductivity is so high that the magnetic field moves with the plasma. We had resistive MHD for over 2 decades before this paper! Scott later lies that Alfvén's 1970 Nobel lecture stated that the frozen in approximation was false. Alfvén's opinion was "Frozen-in picture often completely misleading." (PDF) and changed to overused by 1986.
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 21st July 2020, 10:42 PM   #88
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies with "easy to poke holes in mainstream faerietales." when his lies do not poke holes in anything.
Sol88 lies with "The new papers should cause you to review your papers, will you?". It is possible that new science may mean tusenfem's papers have flaws that will be addressed. An ignorant follower of a cult cannot tell if that is needed.
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 21st July 2020, 10:44 PM   #89
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies with "It’s only quasi neutral to make your math a little easier." when that is a physical property of plasma and he knows it.
Sol88 lies with "Do the electrons and ions all move at the same speed?"
Sol88 lies with "Have the same energy?"
Sol88 lies with "Same mass??"
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 21st July 2020, 10:52 PM   #90
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

A "Your maths is very complicated and is very computationally expensive." fantasy from the abysmally ignorant Sol88.
Sol88 lies with "The dust being charged via electron impact ionisation is a game changer here". This is mainstream ice and dust cometary science, not his cult's debunked dogma.
Sol88 lies with "Streams (jets) of charged dust being removed from the nucleus" (they do not exist).
Sol88 lies with "I mean, Ben this statement is a real doozie" which is a Wikipedia quote about the history of the interplanetary medium
Quote:
The term "interplanetary" appears to have been first used in print in 1691 by the scientist Robert Boyle: "The air is different from the ćther (or vacuum) in the... interplanetary spaces" Boyle Hist. Air.

The notion that space is considered to be a vacuum filled with an "aether", or just a cold, dark vacuum continued up until the 1950s (see below).

In 1898, American astronomer Charles Augustus Young wrote: "Inter-planetary space is a vacuum, far more perfect than anything we can produce by artificial means..." (The Elements of Astronomy, Charles Augustus Young, 1898).

And Akasofu recounted that: "The view that interplanetary space is a vacuum into which the Sun intermittently emitted corpuscular streams was changed radically by Ludwig Biermann (1951, 1953) who proposed on the basis of comet tails, that the Sun continuously blows its atmosphere out in all directions at supersonic speed" (Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Exploring the Secrets of the Aurora, 2002)

Tufts University Professor of astronomy, Kenneth R. Lang, writing in 2000 noted, "Half a century ago, most people visualized our planet as a solitary sphere traveling in a cold, dark vacuum of space around the Sun".[4]
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 21st July 2020, 10:56 PM   #91
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation The usual abysmal level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009

The thousands of lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
The abysmal insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's dogma, etc. (no astronomer believes comets are actual rock)
430 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020
P.S.
The other very debunked cult dogma of an electric sun (SAFIRE) has not been mentioned in a while (CNO fusion neutrinos detected from the real Sun).
Sol88's cult ignores that their ignorant fantasies cause at least hundreds of mass extinction events on Earth !
Will Thunderbolts also have the delusion that Mercury is a comet just because it has a sodium ion tail?[Sol88 implies the answer is yes by citing Mercury's magnetotail!]
Sol88 continues to emphasize his cult's delusion of claiming that active asteroids are comets that turns >600,000 catalogued asteroids into comets !
Lowell Morgan who was the only actual physicist on the SAFIRE project says "EU concept is fraudulent ********", "they don't really know any physics or mathematics to speak of", "Monty and the others were making fraudulent statements" (via jonesdave116 and a Professor Dave video)
  1. Sol88 lies with "Well j=0, MHD (your frozen in magnetic field)... " when he knows that that approximation is used appropriately in space plasma.
  2. Sol88 lies with "1/r law for the outgassing" when that is not used. Astronomers sometimes treat the outgassing of a comet as having spherical symmetry.
  3. Sol88 lies with "lead you down the garden path" lie. We know that comets have "loads of ice" because they emit loads of gas from sublimating ice.
  4. Sol88 lies with "electrons seems to be treated like the poor cousin" lie when he has cited many papers about electrons at comets.
  5. Sol88 lies with mainstream "complex non linear behavior that is plasma" that he and his cult totally ignores.
  6. Sol88 tells the truth for once ("You are under the assumption I am trying to convince you") ! He is obviously here to convince the world that he will lie about posts, etc. given the years of him doing just that.
  7. Sol88 lies with "the solar wind being a perfect conductor" when the solar wind is a very good conductor.
  8. Sol88 lies with "frozen in magnetic field liberally" when that is a valid approximation in plasma physics.
  9. Sol88 lies by citing mainstream ice and dust cometary science
  10. Sol88 still lies with "rocky like comets discharging dust electrically".
  11. Sol88 lies with "You got anything on dusty plasmas, like the ones at 67P?". This is mainstream plasma science unrelated to his cult's dogma.
  12. Sol88 lies with "Talking about discharging..." and citing nothing about electric discharges.
  13. Sol88 lies with "easy to poke holes in mainstream faerietales." when his lies do not poke holes in anything.
  14. Sol88 lies with "The new papers should cause you to review your papers, will you?".
  15. Sol88 lies with "It’s only quasi neutral to make your math a little easier." when that is a physical property of plasma and he knows it.
  16. Sol88 lies with "Do the electrons and ions all move at the same speed?"
  17. Sol88 lies with "Have the same energy?"
  18. Sol88 lies with "Same mass??"
  19. A "Your maths is very complicated and is very computationally expensive." fantasy from the abysmally ignorant Sol88.
  20. Sol88 lies with "The dust being charged via electron impact ionisation is a game changer here". This is mainstream ice and dust cometary science, not his cult's debunked dogma.
  21. Sol88 lies with "Streams (jets) of charged dust being removed from the nucleus" (they do not exist).
  22. Sol88 lies with "I mean, Ben this statement is a real doozie" which is a Wikipedia quote about the history of the interplanetary medium
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 21st July 2020, 11:14 PM   #92
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation The Thunderbolts cult ignorant fantasy about the Butterfly Nebula

A part of Sol88's cult delusions about the electric sun (they make the Sun into a white dwarf, etc.!) is that stars form by a pinch in a flow of plasma squeezing the plasma into a new star. They fantasize about Butterfly Nebula images and are totally ignorant about the nebula itself. The plasma flows outwards, as predicted by the mainstream formation by an existing central star. That central star is a white dwarf that forms at the end of a star's life when its central fusion runs out of fuel, not their fantasy of a new star.

NGC 6302 ("The central star, a white dwarf, was identified in 2009, using the upgraded Wide Field Camera 3 on board the Hubble Space Telescope.[7]"
Iron in the Butterfly Nebula
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 21st July 2020, 11:34 PM   #93
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,020
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Not my claim that the solar wind is quasi neutral.

It’s only quasi neutral to make your math a little easier.
Actual observations of the solar wind plasma would not seem to agree with this statement

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Do the electrons and ions all move at the same speed? Have the same energy? Same mass?
The same mass??? Really????
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 11:46 PM   #94
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,020
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Your maths is very complicated and is very computationally expensive.
But you are very much willing to quote-mine the results from the "very complicated math" and misinterprete it for your cause.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
At this stage we are still dealing with assumptions...

The ELECTRIC COMET has a whole lot of assumptions that are not reconcilable with the Dirtysnowball assumptions.
Yes, there is nothing substantial to the EC idea, otherwise the electric powers that be would use the freely available data from all cometary missions to actually put some meat on the bones that are the EC idea. But, instead, they prefer to look at pictures and do pareidolia-physics.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The dust being charged via electron impact ionisation is a game changer here....
Yeah ... no, electron impact ionization works well for atoms and molecules. For dust the electrons prefer to stick to the dust.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Do you concede some of the assumption made in the ‘50’s may indeed be incorrect?

I mean, Ben this statement is a real doozie
Why would I care for statements from the 1950s? You do know that we are living in the 2020s right now, don't you?
I don't know who "Ben" is.
And then, this statement stems from before the space age, so who cares. Things evolve.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 12:22 AM   #95
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,653
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Actual observations of the solar wind plasma would not seem to agree with this statement



The same mass??? Really????
So how do you propose the solar wind is neutral then?

Stick an object into that flow and viola! Charge separation and electric currents!


but this is old news...


Still, if you use the same at comets, you will be lead down the garden path.

Quote:
The above simple scaling is based on a fluid approach that is appropriate for cometary interactions in the inner solar system.


Delamere and Bagenal (2004) modeled the kinetic interaction of the solar wind with Pluto’s escaping atmosphere using a hybrid simulation that treats the pick-up ions and solar wind protons as particles and the electrons as a massless fluid.
The Solar Wind Around Pluto (SWAP)


Why treat electrons as a massless fluid? Massless compared to the Ions? Not too sure how you go with suprathermal electrons accelarated in an ambipolar electric field...

Math too hard? Again assumptions.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 12:26 AM   #96
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,653
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
But you are very much willing to quote-mine the results from the "very complicated math" and misinterprete it for your cause.



Yes, there is nothing substantial to the EC idea, otherwise the electric powers that be would use the freely available data from all cometary missions to actually put some meat on the bones that are the EC idea. But, instead, they prefer to look at pictures and do pareidolia-physics.



Yeah ... no, electron impact ionization works well for atoms and molecules. For dust the electrons prefer to stick to the dust.



Why would I care for statements from the 1950s? You do know that we are living in the 2020s right now, don't you?
I don't know who "Ben" is.
And then, this statement stems from before the space age, so who cares. Things evolve.
Along with the DIRTYSNOWBALL a product of the '50's

Things indeed do evolve... and everyone here spits the dummy!

A'Hearn's understanding of comets HAD evolved from the 1950's pre space age understanding.

Has yours? Meteoric matrix man!

Yeah ... no, electron impact ionization works well for atoms and molecules. For dust the electrons prefer to stick to the dust. Ummmmm....

Quote:
Based on our experience with mesospheric dust charging at Earth it can be assumed that most of the extra electrons are deep inside the dust particle and they can electrostatically disrupt fluffy, highly friable
dust particles (Hill and Mendis 1981).
4.5 Charged Dust

So who right, tusenfem?

Is the dust charged, 'ol mate and responding to the electric fields? Seems the impact ionisation cause this effect straight from the rocky surface!

__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 22nd July 2020 at 12:41 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 01:05 AM   #97
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,653
Maybe we should revisit Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet67P during period so flow activity

In light of

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 08:49 AM   #98
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,020
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Along
<nonsense snipped>
First try to actually learn some physics.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 11:14 AM   #99
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,020
Okay, I know I am probably going to regret this, but for those who are actually interested in (plasma) physics, I will write a little bit here.

Complaint: Why treat electrons as a massless fluid? Massless compared to the Ions?
Complaint: Usage of MHD is because the math is too complicated

First of all, in my humble opinion, plasma physics is one of the most elegant physical theories, and especially the mathematical description. Starting from Maxwell's equations and the equations of motion of the particles one can derive basically everything that is being observed in plasmas. Most of it through the dielectric tensor.

There are books full of plasma theory, the one by Melrose that I mentioned above is one where the theory is developed fully. There is nothing "too difficult" about the math, it just requires patience and perseverance, the necessary integrals or differential equations are not for the feeble minded. Luckily, there are very fat books that help give the solution of these problems (I have several on my bookshelves).

Now do we have to do things always with the method above? The answer is no. Depending on what we want to study we can simplify things a bit. Just like my standard example, if you want to calculate how long it takes for an apple to fall from the tree to the ground, you could use general relativity, but I think most of us would use Newtonian physics. The same in plasma physics, if you are not interested in the small scales, how each single particle is moving, i.e. if you look at scales much larger than the gyro radius of the heaviest ion, then you can average over the gyro motion of the particles and you get bulk parameters. Naturally, this also means that you cannot look at things at time scales below the gyro period of the heaviest ion. Then you have the hydrodynamic limit, made famous by the 1 pages, Nobel prize winning paper by Hannes Alfvén, who introduced magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). Note that I did not say ideal MHD, it is quite alright to put resistivity in the theory.

Looking at the solar wind, or in the Earth's magnetosphere, it is often assumed that the large scale can be described by ideal MHD, i.e. zero resistivity. In that case it can easily be shown that then the plasma and the magnetic field move together, the frozen in condition. With spacecraft observations, these days, it can be shown that that is a good assumption. Through the measurements of the magnetic field and the plasma moments and the electric field one finds that the ideal MHD equation E = - v x B holds. I have often cited a paper by Lui et al. who searched for the breakdown of the frozen in condition and found only rare cases.

Thus, from actual measurements it follows that (ideal) MHD can be used in the solar wind. Naturally, when we want to look at smaller scales, we cannot do this, then we have to work a little harder.

Now, what is with the "mass less" electrons.

Electrons have 1/1836 times the mass of a proton. (And by the way, all electrons have the same mass 9.1E-31 kg.) This causes problems when we want to make numerical simulations. First of all, the electrons react much faster to electric fields than the ions, because of the tiny mass. The time scales of the electron processes and the ion processes are so vastly different that if one wants to numerically model the plasma behaviour in full detail then the computational time explodes and it will be extremely expensive on a super computer. Therefore, the mass ratio is often reduced to the root, so 1/42.

In the case of the "mass less" electrons the simulation is doing a hybrid approach. In order to describe the ion behaviour in great detail, i.e. in a particle in cell scheme, an approach is that, in order again to speed up the simulation, the electrons are only there to keep the plasma neutral, and then as a mass less fluid which will immediately neutralise any variations in the ion distribution. Thus this simulation only describes how the ions behave.

These are just numerical tricks to save computation time and to only describe a certain aspect of an interaction. If everything would be done with real mass ratio and e.g. full PIC no project would ever finish, and research groups would go broke just from paying for supercomputertime.

Naturally, one has to be very well versed in plasma physics in order to know which approximation in which situation makes sense, in order to explain observations that are made in-situ. It would make no sense to use MHD if I want to study double layers. It would be overly difficult to use a kinetic description to model field line draping around a comet or Venus or Mars.

Okay enough
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 01:39 PM   #100
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies with "So how do you propose the solar wind is neutral then?" which is nothing to do with his cult's debunks dogma.
Sol88 lies with "you will be lead down the garden path" when the mainstream ice and dust comet model is supported by actual physics and physical evidence. He cult is buried under the garden because all they have is denial of the real world, fantasies and even delusions (they make all of the stars in the universe collapse to white dwarf's, neutron stars or black holes !).
Sol88 lies with The Solar Wind Around Pluto (SWAP) when Pluto is not a comet.
Sol88 lies with "suprathermal electrons accelarated in an ambipolar electric field" which is nothing to do with his debunked dogma.

Last edited by Reality Check; 22nd July 2020 at 02:02 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 01:43 PM   #101
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,653
Brilliant post!

No piss take, I do really appreciate you taking the time and clearing things up a little, tusenfem.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 22nd July 2020 at 01:57 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 01:57 PM   #102
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sola88 lies with "Along with the DIRTYSNOWBALL a product of the '50's" when the dirty snowball model is a product of centuries of studying comets, including the last 709 70 years.
Sol88 lies with "everyone here spits the dummy" when we are good with comets having less ice than dust because, unlike Sol88 and his cult, we accept the facts that the universe presents us. Tempel 1 being up to 50% ice is an observed fact. 67P being up to 30% ice is an observed fact. What the ice/dust ratio of 2 out of ~4000 catalogued comets and billions of potential comets means for the average composition of comets is still to be determined.
Sol88 lies with "A'Hearn's understanding of comets HAD evolved from the 1950's" when that is how science works ! A scientific model evolves when new empirical evidence is gathered. Our understanding of comets HAS evolved since the 1950's.
The abysmal insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's dogma, etc. (no astronomer believes comets are actual rock)
Sol88 lies with 4.5 Charged Dust which is irrelevant to his debunked dogma.
Sol88 lies with "Is the dust charged, 'ol mate" when he has just cited 4.5 Charged Dust.
Sol88 lies with "Seems the impact ionisation cause this effect straight from the rocky surface" when the soar wind does not reach the nucleus when the coma exists.
Sol88 lies with "the rocky surface" - there is no rocky surface. There is dust that the solar wind can electrostatically lift.

Last edited by Reality Check; 22nd July 2020 at 02:16 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 01:59 PM   #103
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,653
Now we can get into the real fun stuff. Should be bread and butter for a plasma expert such as your self.

Double layers and electric currents wrt comets.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 02:00 PM   #104
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies yet again with Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet67P during period so flow periods of low activity (a mainstream ice and dust comet paper)
Sol88 lies yet again with A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet (a mainstream ice and dust comet paper)
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 02:01 PM   #105
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,653
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Sola88 lies with "Along with the DIRTYSNOWBALL a product of the '50's" when the dirty snowball model is a product of centuries of studying comets, including the last 709 years.
Sol88 lies with "everyone here spits the dummy" when we are good with comets having less ice than dust because, unlike Sol88 and his cult, we accept the facts that the universe presents us. Tempel 1 being up to 50% ice is an observed fact. 67P being up to 30% ice is an observed fact. What the ice/dust ratio of 2 out of ~4000 catalogued comets and billions of potential comets means for the average composition of comets is still to be determined.
Sol88 lies with "A'Hearn's understanding of comets HAD evolved from the 1950's" when that is how science works ! A scientific model evolves when new empirical evidence is gathered. Our understanding of comets HAS evolved since the 1950's.
The abysmal insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's dogma, etc. (no astronomer believes comets are actual rock)
Sol88 lies with 4.5 Charged Dust which is irrelevant to his debunked dogma.
Sol88 lies with "Is the dust charged, 'ol mate" when he has just cited 4.5 Charged Dust.
Sol88 lies with "Seems the impact ionisation cause this effect straight from the rocky surface" when the soar wind does not reach the nucleus when the coma exists.
Sol88 lies with "the rocky surface" - there is no rocky surface. There is dust that the solar wind can electrostatically lift.

wOw
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 02:03 PM   #106
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation The usual abysmal level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009

The thousands of lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
The abysmal insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's dogma, etc. (no astronomer believes comets are actual rock)
430 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020
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 22nd July 2020, 02:07 PM   #107
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Now we can get into the real fun stuff. Should be bread and butter for a plasma expert such as your self.

Double layers and electric currents wrt comets.
(my hilite)

Let’s.

Please start discussing The Electric Comet Theory.

Starting with citing a primary source.

Thanks in advance.
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 22nd July 2020, 02:08 PM   #108
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies with "I do really appreciate you taking the time and clearing things up a little, tusenfem." when he ignores tusenfem's posts.
tusenfem stated that double layers are impossible at comets. tusenfem pointed out that "thunderbolts" (electric discharges) are impossible at comets. Sol88 ignored this and persists with his cult's delusions of electric discharges and double layer at comets.
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 22nd July 2020, 02:13 PM   #109
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,653
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
(my hilite)

Let’s.

Please start discussing The Electric Comet Theory.

Starting with citing a primary source.

Thanks in advance.
Tag along champ, you may just learn somethings...
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 02:13 PM   #110
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies with "Double layers and electric currents wrt comets." when tusenfem has stated that DLs do not exist at comets. Electric currents are irrelevant to Sol88's cult debunked dogma with its delusion of impossible, invisible massive electric discharges ("thunderbolts") at comets.
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 22nd July 2020, 02:20 PM   #111
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,020
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Tag along champ, you may just learn somethings...
No, JeanTate is right, it's time for you now to put up "champ".
I am not here to do your dirty work, you want to play with the big kids, so ...
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 02:21 PM   #112
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies with "wOw" when I have been documenting his litany of lies for many years. Sol88 must know that the lies, ignorance and fantasies in his posts will be addressed.
That post like this post is what this thread has turned into - a record of Sol88's besmirching his cult with lies, etc.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 02:31 PM   #113
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies with "Tag along champ, you may just learn somethings" when JeanTate cannot learn anything because Sol88 refuses to discuss his cult's dogma.

JeanTate wrote Please start discussing The Electric Comet Theory. Starting with citing a primary source.
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 22nd July 2020, 02:43 PM   #114
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Question How does the electric comet explain the ion and dust tails of comets

An example of questions that Sol88 will ignore and his cult is totally incapable of answering.

How does your electric comet explain the ion and dust tails of comets?
The Structured Tails of Comet NEOWISE

How does your electric comet have jets as electric discharges that emit light in sunlight but not in shadows?
When comet jets are emitted from the dark side of a comet, they are not visible until they emerge into sunlight. Real comet jets can explain this easily. The light we detect is reflected sunlight so of course jets vanish on the night side of comets.

Last edited by Reality Check; 22nd July 2020 at 02:46 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2020, 03:11 PM   #115
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Question Might the electric sun turn the Sun off

A possible part of the electric sun delusion (it fries us by replacing sunlight with gamma radio from fusion in or above the photosphere, etc.) is that it may turn the Sun off !

Wal Thornhill's recent The Electric Universe Heresy fantasies and lies (Thornhill makes atoms impossible, denies facts about forces, denies known laws of physics, and then things get worse!) includes a delusion that a neutron is a proton and an electron.
Everyone knows that an electron bound to a proton is a hydrogen atom that is certainly not a neutron! The lowest energy state allowed in QM for a hydrogen atom gives the atom an atomic (not nuclear) size. Thornhill has a physics degree and knows this. Thornhill could "fix" this by denying QM and saying only classical electromagnetism exists. The problem is that classical electromagnetism makes fusion at the core of the Sun impossible and requires much more difficult conditions for fusion elsewhere. It is QM that reduces the difficulty of fusion in classical physics.

The Sun Only Shines Because Of Quantum Physics
Quote:
So we do the math. We calculate, based on how particles behave and move when you have a whole lot of them under a given set of energies and velocities, how many proton-proton collisions have enough energy to initiate nuclear fusion in those reactions.
To get there, all two protons have to do is get close enough to physically touch, overcoming the fact that they both have positive electric charges, and that like charges repel.
So how many of the ~10⁵⁶ protons in the Sun’s core, colliding billions of times per second, actually have enough energy to cause a fusion reaction to occur?
Exactly zero.
QM has quantum tunneling so colliding protons have a tiny probability of tunneling to form a deuterium nucleus. With ~10⁵⁶ protons that gives enough energy to power the Sun.
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 23rd July 2020, 04:59 AM   #116
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,382
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
No, I understand you can make anything possible with math.
I would reckon it is even easier to make anything possible without math.
__________________
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 23rd July 2020, 03:23 PM   #117
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Tag along champ, you may just learn somethings...
Glad to hear it.

When may I/we expect you to cite at least one primary source, for The Electric Comet Theory?
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 23rd July 2020, 07:56 PM   #118
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Question How does the electric comet explain exocomets in systems with no observed planets

Sol88: How does the electric comet explain exocomets in systems with no observed rocky planets?
Exocomet
Quote:
An exocomet, or extrasolar comet, is a comet outside the Solar System, which includes rogue comets and comets that orbit stars other than the Sun. The first exocomets were detected in 1987[1][2] around Beta Pictoris, a very young A-type main-sequence star. There are now (as of February 2019) a total of 27 stars around which exocomets have been observed or suspected.[3][4][5][6][7]
Beta Pictoris has comets and 2 super-Jupiters. No rocky planets detected yet.
51 Ophiuchi has comets. No rocky planets detected yet.
49 Cetihas comets. No rocky planets detected yet.
5 Vulpeculae has comets. No rocky planets detected yet.
2 Andromedaehas comets. No rocky planets detected yet.
HD 172555 has evidence of a collision between 2 rocky planets and comets.
Phi Leonis has comets. No rocky planets detected yet.
Eta Corvi has cometary material. No rocky planets detected yet.
Likely Transiting Exocomets Detected By Kepler (KIC 3542116) No rocky planets detected yet.

N.B. "No rocky planets detected yet" because smaller planets are harder to detect and a star may have not been inspected for planets yet.

Last edited by Reality Check; 23rd July 2020 at 07:57 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 05:43 PM   #119
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,653
Comets are charged rocky (Chondritic) objects discharging in the solar wind.

Comets are charged as per the standard mainstream model The electrostatic plasma environment of a small airless body under non-aligned plasma flow and UV conditions

Quote:
Airless bodies interact with a wide variety of plasma environments throughout the solar system. For many objects,incident plasma is nearly co-aligned with solar ultraviolet radiation leading to the development of a positively charged day side photoelectron sheath and a negatively charged nightside plasma sheath.
We all agree that a rocky object exposed to the solar wind will "charge" to the ambient plasma potential?

We can "prove" this using math...if that's what we have to do. Plenty of literature on the charging of objects in plasma.

So far so good?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 26th July 2020 at 05:52 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 05:58 PM   #120
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

Sol88 lies with "Comets are charged rocky (Chondritic) objects discharging in the solar wind. Comets are not rocks. Comets are not "Chondritic" asteroids. Comets are not discharging as in his cult's impossible "thunderbolts".
Sol88 lies with "Comets are charged as per the standard mainstream model".
The electrostatic plasma environment of a small airless body under non-aligned plasma flow and UV conditions is on the plasma environment of moons, not Sol88's lie of a charge on comet nuclei. The abstract has "possible surface charging" of those moons. Comets are not airless bodies - they have an atmosphere called a coma !
Sol88 lies with "We all agree that a rocky object exposed to the solar wind will "charge" to the ambient plasma potential?" when Sol88 knows that the solar wind only reaches comet nuclei during low activity (i.e. when there is no shielding coma) as in the papers he has cited.
Sol88 lies with "Plenty of literature on the charging of objects in plasma" when this is the scientific literature his cult ignores, fantasies about or lies about.
Sol88 lies with this post because this is not his cult's debunked dogma of "thunderbolts" between comets and the Sun. Sol88 and his cult completely ignore the effects of the solar wind when it can reach comet nuclei.

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th July 2020 at 06:14 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 03:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.