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 26th July 2020, 06:07 PM   #121
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
  1. Sol88 lies with "I do really appreciate you taking the time and clearing things up a little, tusenfem." when he ignores tusenfem's posts.
  2. Sol88 lies with "Double layers and electric currents wrt comets." when tusenfem has stated that DLs do not exist at comets
  3. Sol88 lies with "wOw" when I have been documenting his litany of lies for many years (so it is not a surprise)
  4. 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.
  5. 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".
  6. Sol88 lies with "Comets are charged as per the standard mainstream model".
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Sol88 lies with "So a comet at its aphelion will charge (no coma, no outgassing) to the ambient plasma" which is irrelevant to his cult's debunked dogma.
  11. Sol88 lies with "So you deny objects charging in a plasma enviroment?"

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th July 2020 at 07:39 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, 06:15 PM   #122
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
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



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?
Maybe. Maybe not.

But what any of this have to do with The Electric Comet Theory (the topic of this thread)?

Would you please cite at least one primary source (for The Electric Comet Theory), so we can all see for ourselves the relationship (if any) between what you posted and The Electric Comet Theory?

Thank you 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 26th July 2020, 06:50 PM   #123
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
So a comet at its aphelion will charge (no coma, no outgassing) to the ambient plasma.

Is this correct reality check?
__________________
“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 06:51 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, 06:54 PM   #124
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Maybe. Maybe not.

But what any of this have to do with The Electric Comet Theory (the topic of this thread)?

Would you please cite at least one primary source (for The Electric Comet Theory), so we can all see for ourselves the relationship (if any) between what you posted and The Electric Comet Theory?

Thank you in advance.

Maybe?

So you deny objects charging in a plasma enviroment?

Ok, then...
__________________
“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 26th July 2020, 07:34 PM   #125
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 a comet at its aphelion will charge (no coma, no outgassing) to the ambient plasma" which is irrelevant to his cult's debunked dogma.

No comet ever charges "to the ambient plasma" because plasma is quasi-neutral and Sol88 knows this. For mainstream ice and dust comets, the dust on a comet's nuclei can electrostatically charged by the solar wind and UV and may be ejected. The inverse square law means that this electrostatic dust charging reduces rapidly as a comet leaves the Sun. It is unlikely that any comet beyond say Jupiter is charged enough to eject dust.

ETA: Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity (PDF) states "As suggested in the recent review given by Mendis and Horányi (2013), the nucleus of comet 67P may exhibit surface charging and dust levitation during the initial part of the Rosetta escort phase when the comet is expected to be only weakly outgassing.". IOW electrostatic ejection of dust is not detected from Earth and needs a spacecraft at the comet. The authors show that the flux of charged nanograins from sunlit regions (but not shadowed areas) might ne detected by the RPC-IES instrument

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th July 2020 at 07:59 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, 07:39 PM   #126
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 you deny objects charging in a plasma enviroment?"

JeanTate wrote Maybe. Maybe not. But what any of this have to do with The Electric Comet Theory (the topic of this thread)? (my emphasis added) in reply to Sol88's "So far so good?" question about mainstream science.

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th July 2020 at 07:40 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, 07:50 PM   #127
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Sol88 lies with "So a comet at its aphelion will charge (no coma, no outgassing) to the ambient plasma" which is irrelevant to his cult's debunked dogma.

No comet ever charges "to the ambient plasma" because plasma is quasi-neutral and Sol88 knows this. For mainstream ice and dust comets, the dust on a comet's nuclei can electrostatically charged by the solar wind and may be ejected. The inverse square law means that this electrostatic dust charging reduces rapidly as a comet leaves the Sun. It is unlikely that any comet beyond say Jupiter is charged enough to eject dust.
So a comet with no coma and not outgassing, exposed to the solar wind will not charge to the ambient plasma potential then RC?


You seem confused for some reason. Too difficult to understand? Need the math?

or are you here, just to get the page count up?
__________________
“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 26th July 2020, 07:52 PM   #128
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Sol88 lies with "So you deny objects charging in a plasma enviroment?"

JeanTate wrote Maybe. Maybe not. But what any of this have to do with The Electric Comet Theory (the topic of this thread)? (my emphasis added) in reply to Sol88's "So far so good?" question about mainstream science.
The electric comet premise is the the nucleus is a charged object.

Not possible you say reality check?
__________________
“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 26th July 2020, 08:06 PM   #129
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 a comet with no coma and not outgassing, exposed to the solar wind ...?" which is not his cult's debunked dogma.
Sol88 lies with "The electric comet premise is the the nucleus is a charged object." when I wrote Sol88 lies [about JeanTate 's post] with "So you deny objects charging in a plasma enviroment?". Sol88 only cites mainstream ice and dust cometary science of temporary, electrostatic lifting of a trivial (not detected from Earth or maybe even Rosetta !) amount of dust.
Sol88 lies with "Not possible you say reality check?" when I have been stating that the mainstream ice and dust cometary science of temporary, electrostatic lifting of a trivial (not detected from Earth or maybe even Rosetta !) amount of dust is possible for s few years now.

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th July 2020 at 08:08 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, 08:16 PM   #130
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)
441 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020Outstanding questions for Sol88:
  1. 23 July 2020: How does your electric comet explain the ion and dust tails of comets?
  2. 23 July 2020: How does your electric comet have jets as electric discharges that emit light in sunlight but not in shadows??
  3. 24 July 2020: How does the electric comet explain exocomets in systems with no observed planets?
The lies continue.
  1. Sol88 lies with "So a comet with no coma and not outgassing, exposed to the solar wind ...?" which is not his cult's debunked dogma.
  2. Sol88 lies with "The electric comet premise is the the nucleus is a charged object." when I wrote Sol88 lies [about JeanTate 's post] with "So you deny objects charging in a plasma enviroment?".
  3. Sol88 lies with "Not possible you say reality check?" when I have been stating that the mainstream ice and dust cometary science of temporary, electrostatic lifting of a trivial (not detected from Earth or maybe even Rosetta !) amount of dust is possible for s few years now.
  4. Sol88 lies with "Will get to the dust being removed shortly." which is mainstream ice and dust cometary science irrelevant to his cult's debunked dogma.
  5. Sol88 lies with another lying question irrelevant to his cult's debunked dogma.
  6. Sol88 lies with "the same charge as the surrounding plasma" when the surrounding plasma is neutral

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th July 2020 at 09:30 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, 08:25 PM   #131
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Will get to the dust being removed shortly.

Can the nucleus be charged via the known mechanisms to assume the same charge as the surrounding plasma, reality check?

__________________
“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 26th July 2020, 09:29 PM   #132
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 "Will get to the dust being removed shortly." which is mainstream ice and dust cometary science irrelevant to his cult's debunked dogma.
Sol88 lies with another lying question irrelevant to his cult's debunked dogma.
Sol88 lies with "the same charge as the surrounding plasma" when the surrounding plasma is neutral. The impact of the solar wind is what can electrostatically charge dust on a comet nucleus during low activity. This is predicted mainstream ice and dust cometary science.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2020, 04:50 AM   #133
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Maybe?

So you deny objects charging in a plasma enviroment?

Ok, then...
Please re-read what I actually wrote.

Please do not mis-represent what I write.

Please answer my questions.

Here they are again:

What any of this have to do with The Electric Comet Theory (the topic of this thread)?

Would you please cite at least one primary source (for The Electric Comet Theory), so we can all see for ourselves the relationship (if any) between what you posted and 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 27th July 2020, 04:53 AM   #134
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The electric comet premise is the the nucleus is a charged object.

<snip>
Please cite a primary source, for The Electric Comet Theory, where it states, as a premise, that "the nucleus is a charged object".

Thank you 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 27th July 2020, 12:32 PM   #135
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Please cite a primary source, for The Electric Comet Theory, where it states, as a premise, that "the nucleus is a charged object".

Thank you in advance.
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove breach of rule 12


Anywhoo....from 1924

Also

The Electrical Nature of Comets


Can an object, in this case a rocky like cometary nucleus, charge when all currents some to zero at the comets aphelion, jean tate?


As per The electrostatic plasma environment of a small airless body undernon-aligned plasmaflow and UV condition

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove breach of rule 12


Comets are charged rocky bodies.
__________________
“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 Agatha; 29th July 2020 at 10:41 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 27th July 2020, 12:37 PM   #136
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
I answered your question now pony up champ...

Can an object, in this case a rocky like cometary nucleus, charge when all currents some to zero at the comets aphelion, jean tate?
__________________
“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 27th July 2020, 01:51 PM   #137
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 The Present Status of the Electrical Theory of Comet Forms (1924) which shows that a solar charge cannot explain comet tails and so is probably radiation pressure. The other electrical theory is a now invalid charging of the comet forming the coma and tail.
Sol88 empathizes the lies and delusions of his cult prophet Wal Thornihill. Thanks yet again Sol88!
Sol88 lies with a lying question. Comets are not rocky, a "all currents some to zero at the comets aphelion" fantasy (no coma = no currents in the coma!), a lie that comets are charged by currents.
Sol88 lies with "The electrostatic plasma environment of a small airless body undernon-aligned plasmaflow and UV condition", a mainstream paper not about comets which have "air " - a coma.
Sol88 repeats his lying "comets aphelion" question.

Last edited by Reality Check; 27th July 2020 at 02:47 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 27th July 2020, 01:52 PM   #138
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Sol88 empathizes the lies and delusions of his cult prophet Wal Thornihill.

The Electrical Nature of Comets is a conference presentation by the documented liar and deluded (delusions that neutrons are a proton and electron, all forces are electromagnetism, the Earth is hollow, etc.) Wal Thornhill. Thornhiil spews out lies and delusions.
  • A lie that the origin of comets is a "unconfirmed narrative".
  • His cult delusion of the industrial process of EDM at comet.
  • A lie that Stardust showed the origin of comets requires high temperatures.
  • A delusion that unexpected "great complexity and higher energy" at comets show that comets are his cult's electric comets.
  • A lie that a forbidden oxygen spectral line is due to strong electric fields
  • A lie that comet activity is only jets.
  • A lie of collimated jets extending millions of kilometers.
  • A lie that physics-less fantasies from a cult can explain anything including "complex structure and high-energy behavior" of comets.
  • A lie that mainstream comets are inert bodies.
  • A delusion that the detected OH is spluttered O- picking up a proton when the cult has no possible mechanism to splutter O-.
  • A blatant "lack of water ice observed on comet nuclei" lie when he mentions Deep Impact which ejected water as reported in 2006.
Wal Thornhill's 15 year old lie of a flash seen before the Deep Impact impact !
Wal Thornhill's 15 year old lie of a more energetic than expected Deep Impact impact.

Last edited by Reality Check; 27th July 2020 at 02:15 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 27th July 2020, 02:02 PM   #139
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I answered your question now pony up champ...

Can an object, in this case a rocky like cometary nucleus, charge when all currents some to zero at the comets aphelion, jean tate?

Cometary nuclei are charged objects...

Evidence of sub-surface energy storage in comet 67P from the outburst of 2016 July 03

Quote:
The ejected material comprised refractory grains of several hundred microns in size, and sub-micron-sized water ice grains. The high dust mass production rate is incompatible with the free sublimation of crystalline water ice under solar illumination as the only acceleration process. Additional energy stored near the surface must have increased the gas density

Is the dust charged? Is the nucleus charged?

__________________
“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 27th July 2020, 02:18 PM   #140
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 "Evidence of sub-surface energy storage in comet 67P from the outburst of 2016 July 03" (no charging of 67P's nucleus).
Sol88 lies with "Is the dust charged?" when he has cited papers stating that surface dust may be electrostatically charged by the solar wind during low activity.
Sol88 lies with "Is the nucleus charged?" when he has cited papers stating that surface dust may be electrostatically charged by the solar wind during low activity.

Last edited by Reality Check; 27th July 2020 at 02:21 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 27th July 2020, 02:25 PM   #141
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Thanks!

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Oh, sorry. I thought you were going to use your brain.

Anywhoo....from 1924

Also

The Electrical Nature of Comets


Can an object, in this case a rocky like cometary nucleus, charge when all currents some to zero at the comets aphelion, jean tate?


As per The electrostatic plasma environment of a small airless body undernon-aligned plasmaflow and UV condition

Or too hard to use your own grey matter?

Comets are charged rocky bodies.
My first impression, upon reading these three, is that they have ~nothing to do with each other!

Certainly the third seems in no way, shape, or form to be about any Electric Comet Theory (much less "The" Electric Comet Theory).

And the first (from 1924) seems incompatible with the second (by Thornhill) at a pretty fundamental level. At least as I understand an overwhelming, core part of your many posts here; namely: there is no plasma in Benioff's paper (the space between the Sun and a comet is a vacuum), while in Thornhill's it is vital.

Are you presenting two (or three), quite different, Electric Comet Theories?

Can you clarify 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 27th July 2020, 02:32 PM   #142
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I answered your question now pony up champ...

Can an object, in this case a rocky like cometary nucleus, charge when all currents some to zero at the comets aphelion, jean tate?
First, is "some" a typo? Do you mean "sum"?

Second, per Benioff (your first "Electric Comet Theory" source), it is unclear whether cometary nuclei are "rocky like" or not. And I'll have to let you answer the question as to whether or not, per Benioff, "all currents some [sic] to zero at the comets [sic] aphelion". If only because I cannot identify what currents there are.

Third, re Thornhill ... well, why don't I let you answer?
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 27th July 2020, 02:47 PM   #143
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Sol88 empathizes the lies and delusions of his cult prophet Wal Thornihill. Thanks yet again Sol88!
Sol88 lies with a lying question. Comets are not rocky, a "all currents some to zero at the comets aphelion" fantasy (no coma = no currents in the coma!), a lie that comets are charged by currents.
Sol88 lies with "The electrostatic plasma environment of a small airless body undernon-aligned plasmaflow and UV condition", a mainstream paper not about comets which have "air " - a coma.
Sol88 repeats his lying "comets aphelion" question.
Here's another way to look at this: for a long time I've been trying to get Sol88 to cite a primary source for The Electric Comet Theory, the topic that this thread is supposed to be about.

Many of us - myself included - have assumed he's referring to a derivative of the Electric Universe ideas of Thornhill and Talbott (and others).

But, until just now, he's never actually said so explicitly.

So, at long last*, we can start to have a discussion of The Electric Comet Theory with the only ISF member who is currently defending/presenting/explaining it!

*IIRC, Talbott made a brief appearance many years ago
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 27th July 2020, 05:10 PM   #144
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I answered your question now pony up champ...

Can an object, in this case a rocky like cometary nucleus, charge when all currents sum to zero at the comets aphelion, jean tate?
Quote:
The floating potential refers to potential at the surface of gust grain where no net current (the sum of negative and positive current is zero) flows. In other word, if a dust grain is immersed in electron-ion plasma and the ion current and the electron current at the grains’ surface attain a balance, then the dust grain has the floating potential.
Dust charging processes in the nonequilibrium dusty plasma with nonextensive power-law distribution

jean tate?

Can the nucleus with no coma or outgassing attain a floating potential of the surrounding plasma, jean tate?

pretty standard stuff really...
Quote:
As a result, an object placed in space plasmas intercepts more electrons than ions. Excess of intercepted electrons charges the spacecraft to negative voltages. This property of electron–ion flux inequality is true not only in space plasmas but also in laboratory plasmas
Spacecraft Charging




or

Too difficult a concept for you?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

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

Last edited by Sol88; 27th July 2020 at 05:18 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 27th July 2020, 05:26 PM   #145
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Quote:
The complex structure and high energy behavior can be explained if the comet is a charged body moving in a radial electric field responsible for accelerating the solar-wind plasma',rather than an inert,heated body in a rarefied supersonic 'wind.'
Accelerated solar wind???

like

Quote:
We identify and characterize the magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons. Solar wind electrons are accelerated to energies as high as 50–70 eV close to the comet nucleus without the need for wave–particle or turbulent heating mechanisms. We find that the accelerating potential controls the parallel electron temperature, total density, and (to a lesser degree) the perpendicular electron temperature and the magnetic field magnitude.
A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

You know just say'n!

Ahhh, uncle Wal.
__________________
“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 27th July 2020, 06:03 PM   #146
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
<content not related to The Electric Comet Theory snipped>
None of that material cites either Benioff (1924) or Thornhill (2007).

So it is not immediately obvious (to me at least) that it has any relevance to The Electric Comet Theory.

Would you be so kind as to describe, preferably in detail, what the relevance is?
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 27th July 2020, 06:13 PM   #147
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Thanks!

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Accelerated solar wind???

like

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

You know just say'n!

Ahhh, uncle Wal.
Um, I think you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting (or both) both the documents you quote from.

Thornhill refers to the solar-wind plasma, but Divin et al. refer to electrons, to take just one example.

Care to try again?
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 27th July 2020, 06:26 PM   #148
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Sol88 empathizes the lies and delusions of his cult prophet Wal Thornihill again

Thank you again Sol88 for showing that Wal Thornihillis deluded about physics yet again!

Sol88 empathizes the lies and delusions of his cult prophet Wal Thornihill.

Sol88 quoted this from Wal Thornihill.
Quote:
The complex structure and high energy behavior can be explained if the comet is a charged body moving in a radial electric field responsible for accelerating the solar-wind plasma',rather than an inert,heated body in a rarefied supersonic 'wind.'
Plasma is made of neutral atoms, electrons and ions. However the solar wind is defined as the charged particles that make up the fast wind.
Thornhill's delusion that a radial electric field will accelerate neutral atoms.
Thornhill's delusion that a radial electric field will accelerate electrons in the same direction. An electric field will slow down either elections or ions.
Thornhill's delusion that a radial electric field can account for the observed acceleration of the solar wind which mostly happens close to the Sun. Thermal acceleration creates a wind out to the corona and processes in the corona accelerate it further (theoretically to a peak and then decreasing).
Evolution of the Solar Wind Speed with Heliocentric Distance and Solar Cycle. (PDF) shows that there is an increasing V(r) component and a decreasing V(r) component.

Last edited by Reality Check; 27th July 2020 at 06:39 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 27th July 2020, 06:32 PM   #149
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks!


Um, I think you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting (or both) both the documents you quote from.

Thornhill refers to the solar-wind plasma, but Divin et al. refer to electrons, to take just one example.

Care to try again?
Quote:
The complex structure and high energy behavior can be explained if the comet is a charged body moving in a radial electric field responsible for accelerating the solar-wind plasma',rather than an inert,heated body in a rarefied supersonic 'wind.'
Thornhill

Quote:
We identify and characterize the magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons. Solar wind electrons are accelerated to energies as high as 50–70 eV close to the comet nucleus without the need for wave–particle or turbulent heating mechanisms. We find that the accelerating potential controls the parallel electron temperature, total density, and (to a lesser degree) the perpendicular electron temperature and the magnetic field magnitude.
Divin



Sorry, you seem to have missed that they are indeed solar wind electrons that are being accelerated.

As Thornhill had alluded to.


Difficult, isn't it, jean tate.

Ions of the solar wind are of no consequence! The highly mobile electrons are. The suprathermal electron affect dust grain charging processes. This we "see" in the form of dust being electrostaticlly lifted of the nucleus surface as "jets".
__________________
“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; 27th July 2020 at 06:39 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 27th July 2020, 06:36 PM   #150
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 "Dust charging processes in the nonequilibrium dusty plasma with nonextensive power-law distribution" and an irrelevant quote.
Sol88 lies with irrelevant gibberish about that irrelevant paper.
Sol88 lies with "Spacecraft Charging" which is about spacecraft charging !
Sol88 lies with Thornhill's solar wind delusion which is not Devin's science about solar wind electrons being accelerated locally in a comet coma.
Sol88 lies with "As Thornhill had alluded to." when Thornhill wrote and Sol88 highlighted "solar-wind plasma" (electrons and ions) being accelerated by the cult's imaginary radial (radiating out from the Sun) electric field.
Sol88 lies with "Ions of the solar wind are of no consequence!". They exist and have consequences.
Sol88 lies with "dust being electrostaticlly lifted" which is not in his cult's dead dogma
Sol88 lies with "in the form of dust being electrostaticlly lifted of the nucleus surface" when we have never seen dust being electrostatically lifted of the nucleus surface.
Sol88 lies with "in the form of dust being electrostaticlly lifted of the nucleus surface as "jets"". Mainstream ice and dust comets have the possibility of dust being electrostatically lifted of the nucleus surface over the entire surface.
Sol88 lies with "... as "jets"" when jets are gas and dust and his cult's dead dogma has jets as impossible electric discharges.
Sol88 lies with citing "A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet" which is nothing to do with Wal Thornhill's delusions.
Sol88 lies that a paper only about electron acceleration is about the acceleration of the solar wind (electrons and ions).

Sol88 empathizes the lies and delusions of his cult prophet Wal Thornihill.
Sol88 empathizes the lies and delusions of his cult prophet Wal Thornihill yet again.
A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet is mainstream ice and dust cometary science mentioning that solar wind electrons are accelerated locally in a comet coma.

Last edited by Reality Check; 27th July 2020 at 06:55 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 28th July 2020, 12:36 AM   #151
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,380
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So far so good?
What a pity that planets and asteroids are not all comets, eh?
__________________
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 28th July 2020, 04:15 AM   #152
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
What a pity that planets and asteroids are not all comets, eh?
eh?

No, you are pretty cluey though, but in reality, they are charged objects in a supersonic plasma flow.


Electrons, light little buggers...


So, steenkh, that being the case, one assumes that an airless, magnetic field free, rocky like cometary nucleus immersed in said plasma flow, would obtain a floating potential with respect to said plasma flow.

Quote:
The complex structure and high energy behavior can be explained if the comet is a charged body moving in a radial electric field responsible for accelerating the solar-wind plasma',rather than an inert,heated body in a rarefied supersonic 'wind.'
Thornhill

Divin has confirmed this is the case.

Would this be your understanding too?
__________________
“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; 28th July 2020 at 04:17 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 28th July 2020, 08:37 AM   #153
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Remember this, Sol88?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser
Oh nice. A commitment. If the sun is positive. As you claim. How has the EU crowd solved the problem we see electrons streaming away from it then?
You know? The opposite way we see them move in every electrical device everywhere?

In fact. Given that in the EC fantasy cometary tails are electrons they should in your theory point toward the sun. Not, as we observe, away from them.

Once again your theories predict the observed universe to be wrong.
At least you're consistent in that.
You are correct, undeniable, Lukrakk!

In a highly conductive quasi neutral medium with the application of electrostatics it is indeed IMPOSSIBLE....


Unfortunately we don’t live in that universe...


Field aligned currents, Birkeland currents, double layers all very difficult in your electrostatic quasi neutral highly conductive medium.

Very hard to reconcile the two views...
(my hilite)

Yet, in the Benioff (1924) version of The Electric Comet Theory (which you cited as a primary source), the universe (or at least the Sun and comets) is exactly as Lukraak_Sisser describes!

Would you care to try to reconcile the two 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 28th July 2020, 08:58 AM   #154
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Thanks.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Quote:
The complex structure and high energy behavior can be explained if the comet is a charged body moving in a radial electric field responsible for accelerating the solar-wind plasma',rather than an inert,heated body in a rarefied supersonic 'wind.'
Thornhill

Quote:
We identify and characterize the magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons. Solar wind electrons are accelerated to energies as high as 50–70 eV close to the comet nucleus without the need for wave–particle or turbulent heating mechanisms. We find that the accelerating potential controls the parallel electron temperature, total density, and (to a lesser degree) the perpendicular electron temperature and the magnetic field magnitude.
Divin



Sorry, you seem to have missed that they are indeed solar wind electrons that are being accelerated.

As Thornhill had alluded to.


Difficult, isn't it, jean tate.
Let's see now ...

Same quotes, different hilites:
Quote:
The complex structure and high energy behavior can be explained if the comet is a charged body moving in a radial electric field responsible for accelerating the solar-wind plasma',rather than an inert,heated body in a rarefied supersonic 'wind.'
Quote:
We identify and characterize the magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons. Solar wind electrons are accelerated to energies as high as 50–70 eV close to the comet nucleus without the need for wave–particle or turbulent heating mechanisms. We find that the accelerating potential controls the parallel electron temperature, total density, and (to a lesser degree) the perpendicular electron temperature and the magnetic field magnitude.
So it's more like your two quotes are referring to two quite different things (as RC already noted), wouldn't you say?

Or, "I think you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting (or both) both the documents you quote from" perhaps?

Quote:
Ions of the solar wind are of no consequence! The highly mobile electrons are. The suprathermal electron affect dust grain charging processes. This we "see" in the form of dust being electrostaticlly lifted of the nucleus surface as "jets".
Not according to Thornhill (2007): "The fine dust particles may be the result of cathode sputtering."

In short, it seems that Divan et al. (2020) is at best irrelevant to Thornhill (2007)'s claims (and at worst contradicts them).

Care to try again?
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 28th July 2020, 09:02 AM   #155
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
my hilite
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
eh?

No, you are pretty cluey though, but in reality, they are charged objects in a supersonic plasma flow.


Electrons, light little buggers...


So, steenkh, that being the case, one assumes that an airless, magnetic field free, rocky like cometary nucleus immersed in said plasma flow, would obtain a floating potential with respect to said plasma flow.

Thornhill

Divin has confirmed this is the case.

Would this be your understanding too?
Um, no. Just no.

Per my most recent post in this thread (and RC's before that), the Divan et al. (2020) paper is at best irrelevant to Thornhill (2007)'s claims. And as we dig deeper, I expect to learn that the two are, in fact, quite incompatible/inconsistent.
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 28th July 2020, 12:48 PM   #156
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
my hilite

Um, no. Just no.

Per my most recent post in this thread (and RC's before that), the Divan et al. (2020) paper is at best irrelevant to Thornhill (2007)'s claims. And as we dig deeper, I expect to learn that the two are, in fact, quite incompatible/inconsistent.

Mmmmmmm....


If you say so, jean tate, if you say so.
__________________
“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 28th July 2020, 12:49 PM   #157
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 "in reality, they are charged objects in a supersonic plasma flow" when Earth is not a airless body ! Ditto for Venus and Mars. They are not charged by the mainstream (not his part of cult's dogma) process of the solar wind reaching the surface and electrostatically charging dust.
Sol88 persistently lies with "rocky like cometary nucleus" when it is rocky like behavior of landslides on 67P.
Sol88 cites the documented liar and obviously deluded (Hollow Earth believer!) Wal Thornhill again.
Sol88 lies with "Divin has confirmed this is the case."

Sol88 empathizes the lies and delusions of his cult prophet Wal Thornihill.
Sol88 empathizes the lies and delusions of his cult prophet Wal Thornihill yet again.
Sol88 lies about A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet is mainstream ice and dust cometary science mentioning that solar wind electrons are accelerated locally in a comet coma

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th July 2020 at 12:53 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 28th July 2020, 12:52 PM   #158
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks.


Let's see now ...

Same quotes, different hilites:



So it's more like your two quotes are referring to two quite different things (as RC already noted), wouldn't you say?

Or, "I think you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting (or both) both the documents you quote from" perhaps?


Not according to Thornhill (2007): "The fine dust particles may be the result of cathode sputtering."

In short, it seems that Divan et al. (2020) is at best irrelevant to Thornhill (2007)'s claims (and at worst contradicts them).

Care to try again?

Seems the suprathermal electrons and the field aligned ambipolar electric field has quite a dominant role in charging the dust.

Possibly, as the charged patched model shows, it maybe the dominant cause of the dust jets!

You do know, jean tate, that the dust is being electrically removed and collimated?
__________________
“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 28th July 2020, 12:54 PM   #159
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
So, steenkh, jean tate that being the case, one assumes that an airless, magnetic field free, rocky like cometary nucleus immersed in said plasma flow, would obtain a floating potential with respect to said plasma flow?

Simple yes or no, will suffice.
__________________
“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; 28th July 2020 at 12:56 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 28th July 2020, 12:54 PM   #160
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Outstanding questions for Sol88

Outstanding questions for Sol88:
  1. 23 July 2020: How does your electric comet explain the ion and dust tails of comets?
  2. 23 July 2020: How does your electric comet have jets as electric discharges that emit light in sunlight but not in shadows??
  3. 24 July 2020: How does the electric comet explain exocomets in systems with no observed planets?
  4. 29 July 2020: Please give a primary source for the electric comet inclusion of electrostatic charging of dust on comet nuclei without coma by the solar wind.

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th July 2020 at 01:58 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 10:14 AM.
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.