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 28th July 2020, 01:15 PM   #161
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)
447 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020The lies, etc. continue.
  1. 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.
  2. Sol88 lies with another lying question irrelevant to his cult's debunked dogma.
  3. Sol88 lies with "the same charge as the surrounding plasma" when the surrounding plasma is neutral.
  4. 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.
  5. Sol88 empathizes the lies and delusions of his cult prophet Wal Thornihill. Thanks yet again Sol88!
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Sol88 repeats his lying "comets aphelion" question.
  9. 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).
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Sol88 lies with "Dust charging processes in the nonequilibrium dusty plasma with nonextensive power-law distribution" and an irrelevant quote.
  13. Sol88 lies with irrelevant gibberish about that irrelevant paper.
  14. Sol88 lies with "Spacecraft Charging" which is about spacecraft charging !
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Sol88 lies with "Ions of the solar wind are of no consequence!". They exist and have consequences.
  18. Sol88 lies with "dust being electrostaticlly lifted" which is not in his cult's dead dogma
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Sol88 lies with "... as "jets"" when jets are gas and dust and his cult's dead dogma has jets as impossible electric discharges.
  22. 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.
  23. Sol88 lies that a paper only about electron acceleration [in comet coma] is about the acceleration of the solar wind (electrons and ions).
  24. 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.
  25. Sol88 persistently lies with "rocky like cometary nucleus" when it is rocky like behavior of landslides on 67P.
  26. Sol88 cites the documented liar and obviously deluded (Hollow Earth believer!) Wal Thornhill again.
  27. Sol88 lies with "Divin has confirmed this is the case."

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th July 2020 at 01:26 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2020, 01:19 PM   #162
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
So far no inconsistencies have really popped up in the electric comet.

Rock, sheath, acceleration, charged dust, electric currents, electric fields, trapping, defelection.

All from a charged rocky body.

This is the driver that gets a comet “active” (dust release).

As observered.
__________________
“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, 01:28 PM   #163
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So far no inconsistencies have really popped up in the electric comet.

Rock, sheath, acceleration, charged dust, electric currents, electric fields, trapping, defelection.

All from a charged rocky body.

This is the driver that gets a comet “active” (dust release).

As observered.
That may be so. Or not.

However, the topic of this thread is The Electric Comet Theory, not “the electric comet” (that’s a brand of vacuum cleaners, isn’t it? Or cars?).

And we now have a primary source (two actually), thanks to you.

So, can we please return to discussing The Electric Comet Theory?

Starting with you answering my questions (shall I repeat them?).
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, 01:41 PM   #164
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
That may be so. Or not.

However, the topic of this thread is The Electric Comet Theory, not “the electric comet” (that’s a brand of vacuum cleaners, isn’t it? Or cars?).

And we now have a primary source (two actually), thanks to you.

So, can we please return to discussing The Electric Comet Theory?

Starting with you answering my questions (shall I repeat them?).
Right right right, I see what’s going on here. Good one.

If, you choose to not look thru the telescope....
__________________
“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, 01:42 PM   #165
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 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
Sol88 lies with "Seems the suprathermal electrons and the field aligned ambipolar electric field has quite a dominant role in charging the dust.". The the suprathermal electrons and the field aligned ambipolar electric field exist in comet coma. They have nothing to do with charging of surface dust by the solar wind when the coma dies not exist !
Sol88 lies with "as the charged patched model shows" which a theoretical model of dust charging on airless bodies. Comets have "air", i.e. coma, during the time that dust is observed to be ejected.
Sol88 lies with "it maybe the dominant cause of the dust jets" when the paper he cited has no mention of comets or jets. It was about the ganeral lifting of dust from airless bodies.
Sol88 lies with "it maybe the dominant cause of the dust jets" when they do not exist. Comet jets are gas + dust.
Sol88 persistently lies with "rocky like cometary nucleus" when it is rocky like behavior of landslides on 67P.
Sol88 persists with his lying "rocky like cometary nucleus" question that has been answered for years - a comet without a coma will "obtain a floating potential with respect to" the solar wind. A comet without a coma will have so far undetected even at 67P dust lofted from the surface. A comet with a coma ejects so much dust that it is easily detected even from Earth.
Sol88 lies with "So far no inconsistencies have really popped up in the electric comet" when we have not discussed his cult's dead dogma for years.
Sol88 lies with "RocK" when no rock has been detected on comets.
Sol88 lies with "sheath, acceleration, charged dust, electric currents, electric fields, trapping, defelection" when that is not his cult's dead dogma.
Sol88 lies with "charged rocky body". Comets are not rocks. Mainstream ice and dust cometary science predicts that comets with no coma can have dust electrostatically ejected by the solar wind.
Sol88 lies with "This is the driver that gets a comet “active” (dust release)." An active comet has observed gas and dust release to from a coma, ion tail and sometimes a dust tail. The undetected "dust release" is mainstream ice and dust cometary science. His cult's dead dogma ignores this well established science .
Sol88 lies with "as observered" as none of his cult's dogma has been observed, e.g. their delusion of physically impossible of "thunderbolts" at comets would produce distinctive radiation which has not been observed.
Sol88 lies with "I see what’s going on here". JeanTate is clear that JeanTate wants to discuss the topic of this thread, The Electric Comet Theory, and hat answered to his quesions:Starting with you answering my questions (shall I repeat them?).
Sol88 lies with "If, you choose to not look thru the telescope...." when JeanTate is asking for "The Electric Comet Theory" evidence from "thru the telescope" which has not been presented in the last 11 years !
Sol88 lies with "I think you maybe somewhat, intimidated, by this simple question" which is mainstream science and has been answered for years (a comet with no coma is predicted to be electrostatically charged by the solar wind).
Sol88 lies with "wrt the Electric Comet (The topic of this thread)" as Sol88's cult ignores electrostatic charging of dust on comets by the solar wind. Just in case, I added this to my questions for him that he is still ignoring.
Outstanding questions for Sol88

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th July 2020 at 01:59 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 28th July 2020, 01:44 PM   #166
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
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.
I think you maybe somewhat, intimidated, by this simple question, meant tate, as it has a direct bearing on the answers you may or may not be seeking wrt the Electric Comet (The topic of this thread).

__________________
“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 01:52 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 28th July 2020, 02:15 PM   #167
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation More on Sol88's lying question on mainstream electrostatic cometary dust charging

Sol88 cited The electrostatic plasma environment of a small airless body under non-aligned plasma flow and UV conditions (PDF) recently. That paper only mentions comets indirectly by 1 citation of Whipple 1981 which in turn has a paragraph on possible surface charging of comets with no atmosphere and beyond 5 AU. That is the answer to his question that we have been stating for years in this thread. Comets without coma are predicted (but not observed) to eject dust through electrostatic charging of the dust by the solar wind.

Potentials of surfaces in space by EC Whipple - Reports on progress in Physics, 1981 (PDF)
Quote:
In the last decade, large electrostatic potentials of the order of tens of kV have been measured on spacecraft in the Earth's magnetosphere. Observations in space have led to the inference of large potentials on natural objects in the Solar System. The result for spacecraft can be material damage and operational interference caused by electrostatic discharges. Natural objects such as dust grains can be disrupted, and their motion influenced by electromagnetic forces.
...
9.3. Other solar-system bodies
Other bodies in the solar wind with little or no atmosphere of their own should have surface potentials similar to the Moon’s. Mendis et al (l981) have suggested that water-dominated comets beyond 5 AU from the Sun will not have a protective atmosphere and thus may charge to potentials such that submicron dust particles could be electrostatically levitated and blown off the cometary surface. This might explain periodic dust outbursts which have been observed from some distant comets, since the potentials on the dark
side of the comet would be modulated by the solar-wind speed. This mechanism could also provide a source of fine dust in the outer solar system.
Obviously Sol88 rarely reads what he cites !
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, 02:47 PM   #168
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Why Wal Thornhill's idea that a neutron is a proton and electron is a delusion

Wal Thornhill's recent The Electric Universe Heresy (includes the electric comet and sun) fantasies and lies includes a delusion that a neutron is a proton and an electron. The easily seen reason that this is deluded is that an electron bound to a proton is a hydrogen atom, not a neutron. A hydrogen atom is much larger then a neutron. A hydrogen atom has atomic energy states, not nuclear ones. A free hydrogen atom does not decay in 881.5(15) s.
A major reason that this is deluded is that Thornhill is denying the physics he learned in his physics degree !
  1. Thornhill violates the conservation of angular momentum.
    Protons and electrons have spin 1/2 which add up to 0 (opposite spins) or 1 (parallel spins). A neutron has spin 1/2.
  2. Thornhill denies electromagnetism!
    A proton and electron bound electromagnetically do not radioactively decay. Neutrons decay.
  3. Thornhill denies the decay of free neutrons into a proton, electron and electron antineutrino.
  4. Thornhill denies inverse beta decay where a proton decays into a neutron, a positron and an electron neutrino.
  5. Thornhill denies the empirical evidence that the neutron has 3 scattering centers, not the 2 his idea demands.
Thornhill makes atoms impossible, denies facts about forces, denies known laws of physics, and then things get worse!
Sol88 empathizes the comet lies and delusions of his cult prophet Wal Thornihill.
Sol88 empathizes the comet lies and delusions of his cult prophet Wal Thornihill yet again.
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, 03:35 PM   #169
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I think you maybe somewhat, intimidated, by this simple question, meant tate, as it has a direct bearing on the answers you may or may not be seeking wrt the Electric Comet (The topic of this thread).

Again, the topic of this thread is The Electric Comet Theory.

Per your earlier post, there are two such, Benioff (1924) and Thornhill (2007); B24 and T07, respectively, for short.

Your “simple question” is tied (inextricably?) to a paper you cited, Poppe et al. (2015), P15 for short (thanks to RC for the reminder).

As far as I can tell, P15 is quite independent of either B24 or T07; maybe you can describe a citation chain which does link them?

Content-wise, the foundations of P15 are incompatible with B24: there is no plasma flow in B24 (indeed, no plasma).

The incompatibility of T07 with P15 is not so obvious. However given Thornhill’s disdain for quantitative analysis and the fact that his Electric Comet Theory violates textbook electromagnetism, I feel it’s likely he would be very angry to see you using the results of a very complicated set of mathematical models in support of his Theory.

But perhaps I’m wrong. Can you show that P15’s models and methods are consistent with T07’s?

Last edited by JeanTate; 28th July 2020 at 03:37 PM.
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, 03:39 PM   #170
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Sol88 cited The electrostatic plasma environment of a small airless body under non-aligned plasma flow and UV conditions (PDF) recently. That paper only mentions comets indirectly by 1 citation of Whipple 1981 which in turn has a paragraph on possible surface charging of comets with no atmosphere and beyond 5 AU. That is the answer to his question that we have been stating for years in this thread. Comets without coma are predicted (but not observed) to eject dust through electrostatic charging of the dust by the solar wind.

Potentials of surfaces in space by EC Whipple - Reports on progress in Physics, 1981 (PDF)

Obviously Sol88 rarely reads what he cites !
That and/or misunderstands and/or misrepresents them.
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, 03:39 PM   #171
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Wal Thornhill makes the electric sun and SAFIRE into delusions

Wal Thornhill's recent The Electric Universe Heresy article makes the electric sun and SAFIRE into delusions. Note that Thornhill has a physics degree so lying abut or denying textbook physics is part of what makes his fantasies deluded.
  1. Thornhill lies that there were "predictions such as transmutation of elements and extremely high energy levels" for SAFIRE.
    He gives no sources. The SAFIRE web site did not predict this.
  2. Thornhill lies that SAFIRE produced transmutation of elements.
    Ignorant SAFIRE cranks announcing this at a crank conference does not make it observed. The only physicist that worked on the project stated that these claims are fraudulent.
  3. Thornhill lies that "extremely high energy level" are significant.
    This was a standard plasma experiment. Any comparable experiment would produce the same energy levels. Actual fusion experiments would produce much higher energy levels.
  4. Thornhill has a delusion that the electric sun produces "benign nuclear energy in the Sun’s atmosphere".
    We detect the neutrino flux from the level of fusion matching solar output. We detect neutrinos from the specific fusion reactions powering the Sun. That amount of fusion will not happen in the solar atmosphere (too cold in general, much too thin plasma). The amount of fusion this delusion demands would fry us with gamma rays . Basically every photon of sunlight would become a gamma ray.
  5. Thornhill has a delusion that sunspots are holes exposing a cooler interior.
    As far as we can see, sunspots are in the photosphere. They are cooler basically because of electromagnetism (thus the delusion). Magnetic fields at sunspots reduce mixing of plasma with the surrounding plasma. That allows the plasma in the sunspot to radiate heat and cool down without being heated up by mixing.
  6. Thornhill has a delusion that "the body of the Sun is cooler beneath the photosphere".
    Any astronomy textbook would tell him that the laws of physics say that stable stars have to increase temperature with depth. Even a bit of commonsense and thought will show that. The increasing "weight" with depth will need higher pressure and so higher temperature to support it.
    This physics is confirmed by the Sun matching models with temperature increasing with depth.
  7. Thornhill has a delusion that stars produce heavy elements in their atmosphere.
    See above for the fusion in the atmosphere delusion that can only produce light elements in stars like the Sun. The observed p-p chain and CNO cycle reactions produce helium. Existing C, N, O are needed in the CNO cycle. Fusion produces heavier elements up to Fe when stars run out of H. This will happen for the Sun in a few billion years.
  8. Thornhill has a delusion that "highly ionised iron atoms in the solar wind" is produced by fusion.
    The Sun can only produce helium by fusion (see above). A fusion process that produces nuclei lighter than iron-56 or nickel-62 will generally release energy. This is textbook physics.
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, 03:52 PM   #172
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
That and/or misunderstands and/or misrepresents them.
11 years of misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting papers and continuing after they have ben explained to him is evidence of a wish to lie about the papers.

Sol88 would have to be unable to understand/interpret well known words like comet or Sun ! Sol88 cited "A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet" as evidence for his cult's delusion of a radial electric field accelerating both electrons and ions which violates the law of electromagnetism. That paper is about electron acceleration around a weakly outgassing comet at several AU by the interaction of the solar wind with a comet coma. That is blatantly not the electron and proton acceleration of the solar wind that happens around the Sun within about 10 solar radii.
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, 04:03 PM   #173
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Again, the topic of this thread is The Electric Comet Theory.

Per your earlier post, there are two such, Benioff (1924) and Thornhill (2007); B24 and T07, respectively, for short.

Your “simple question” is tied (inextricably?) to a paper you cited, Poppe et al. (2015), P15 for short (thanks to RC for the reminder).

As far as I can tell, P15 is quite independent of either B24 or T07; maybe you can describe a citation chain which does link them?

Content-wise, the foundations of P15 are incompatible with B24: there is no plasma flow in B24 (indeed, no plasma).

The incompatibility of T07 with P15 is not so obvious. However given Thornhill’s disdain for quantitative analysis and the fact that his Electric Comet Theory violates textbook electromagnetism, I feel it’s likely he would be very angry to see you using the results of a very complicated set of mathematical models in support of his Theory.

But perhaps I’m wrong. Can you show that P15’s models and methods are consistent with T07’s?

incompatible with B24: there is no plasma flow in B24 (indeed, no plasma).





Tar baby arguments
__________________
“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, 04:18 PM   #174
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
incompatible with B24: there is no plasma flow in B24 (indeed, no plasma).





Tar baby arguments
Did you actually read Benioff (1924)?

Would you please point out where, in that paper, plasma flow is mentioned (directly or indirectly)?
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, 04:43 PM   #175
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 "Tar baby arguments". Sol88 cited Benioff (1924). Sol88 must know and show its relevance to the electric comet theory (the topic of this thread).
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.
The paper cannot and does not mention plasma because the term "plasma" was introduced as a description of ionised gas by Irving Langmuir in 1928.[16] The paper cannot and does not mention the solar wind because we did not know about it in 1924! There were suggestions that the Sun emitted particles (electrons and ions) dating from 1859. It was in 1957 that Eugene Parker discovered the supersonic solar wind by putting together a previous model and comet tails. It was Parker who named the solar wind.
Benioff assumes that a comet nucleus is charged and says it is caused by solar radiation: "The outward radial motions in all directions of particles close to the nucleus are best explained as resulting from an electrical charge associated with the nucleus. This charge is generated as follows: A number of molecules in the nucleus are ionized by solar radiations."

Who in this thread has the ignorant fantasy that an assumption of radial symmetry makes physics invalid? Sol88 !

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th July 2020 at 05:07 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, 05:35 PM   #176
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Did you actually read Benioff (1924)?

Would you please point out where, in that paper, plasma flow is mentioned (directly or indirectly)?


Irving Langmuir

Quote:
As he continued to study filaments in vacuum and different gas environments, he began to study the emission of charged particles from hot filaments (thermionic emission).

He was one of the first scientists to work with plasmas, and he was the first to call these ionized gases by that name because they reminded him of blood plasma.[10][11][12] Langmuir and Tonks discovered electron density waves in plasmas that are now known as Langmuir waves.[13]

Around the same time as Benioff (1924) paper. So plasma is a fairly new concept.

Seems it may be the case with yourself as well?

You'll have to assume at this time that Benioff (1924) paper requires, the later discovered, solar plasma flow('50's)?

Anyhoo, comets being rocky like objects MUST charge/discharge to a floating potential wrt the local solar wind conditions.

Now, what would upset this situation?
__________________
“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 05:54 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, 07:39 PM   #177
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 Irving Langmuir who is not the author of Benioff (1924)
Sol88 lies with "around the same time as Benioff (1924) paper". Langmuir named partially ionized gases as plasma in 1928, 4 years after Benioff (1924)
Sol88 lies that Benioff (1924) knew about the solar wind wind that was not named until 1957. In 1924, there ware only speculation about particles being emitted by the Sun.
Sol88 continues to lie about Benioff (1924) which explicitly states that solar radiations create his assumed charge.
Sol88 persists with his "rocky like " lie (it is rocky like behavior of landslides on 67P).
Sol88 lies with "MUST charge/discharge". There are no discharges at comets. His cult's dead dogma has none of the science Sol88 is citing. Mainstream ice and dust cometary science predicts that the solar wind will electrostatically charge dust on comets with no coma.
Sol88 lies with "Now, what would upset this situation?" when Sol88 knows it is the formation of comet coma. Coma stop the solar wind from reaching the nucleus surface, the solar wind no longer electrostatically charges dust, the dust grabs charge and becomes neutral. The period of theoretical, undetected dust ejection ends. The period of observed, massive dust ejection by ices sublimating starts .

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th July 2020 at 07:46 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 28th July 2020, 07:53 PM   #178
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues

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)
474 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020
The litany of lies, etc. continues.
  1. 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
  2. Sol88 lies with "Seems the suprathermal electrons and the field aligned ambipolar electric field has quite a dominant role in charging the dust.".
  3. Sol88 lies with "as the charged patched model shows" which a theoretical model of dust charging on airless bodies.
  4. Sol88 lies with "it maybe the dominant cause of the dust jets" when the paper he cited has no mention of comets or jets.
  5. Sol88 lies with "it maybe the dominant cause of the dust jets" when they do not exist. Comet jets are gas + dust.
  6. Sol88 persistently lies with "rocky like cometary nucleus" when it is rocky like behavior of landslides on 67P.
  7. Sol88 persists with his lying "rocky like cometary nucleus" question that has been answered for years.
  8. Sol88 lies with "So far no inconsistencies have really popped up in the electric comet" when we have not discussed his cult's dead dogma for years.
  9. Sol88 lies with "RocK" when no rock has been detected on comets.
  10. Sol88 lies with "sheath, acceleration, charged dust, electric currents, electric fields, trapping, defelection" when that is not his cult's dead dogma.
  11. Sol88 lies with "charged rocky body".
  12. Sol88 lies with "This is the driver that gets a comet “active” (dust release)."
  13. Sol88 lies with "as observered" as none of his cult's dogma has been observed.
  14. Sol88 lies with "I see what’s going on here" when JeanTate is clear that JeanTate wants to discuss the topic of this thread,
  15. Sol88 lies with "If, you choose to not look thru the telescope...." when JeanTate is asking for "The Electric Comet Theory" evidence from "thru the telescope" which has not been presented in the last 11 years !
  16. Sol88 lies with "I think you maybe somewhat, intimidated, by this simple question" which is mainstream science and has been answered for years (a comet with no coma is predicted to be electrostatically charged by the solar wind).
  17. Sol88 lies with "wrt the Electric Comet (The topic of this thread)" as Sol88's cult ignores electrostatic charging of dust on comets by the solar wind.
  18. Sol88 lies with "Tar baby arguments".
  19. Sol88 lies with Irving Langmuir who is not the author of Benioff (1924)
  20. Sol88 lies with "around the same time as Benioff (1924) paper". Langmuir named partially ionized gases as plasma in 1928, 4 years after Benioff (1924)
  21. Sol88 lies that Benioff (1924) knew about the solar wind wind that was not named until 1957. In 1924, there ware only speculation about particles being emitted by the Sun.
  22. Sol88 continues to lie about Benioff (1924) which explicitly states that solar radiations create his assumed charge.
  23. Sol88 persists with his "rocky like " lie (it is rocky like behavior of landslides on 67P).
  24. Sol88 lies with "MUST charge/discharge". There are no discharges at comets. Sol88 lies with "Now, what would upset this situation?" when Sol88 knows it is the formation of comet coma.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2020, 07:56 PM   #179
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation More about Sol88's cult, Sol88's lies and Sol88 emphasizing his cult's idiocy


Last edited by Reality Check; 28th July 2020 at 08:09 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 29th July 2020, 12:41 AM   #180
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Quote:
Sol88 lies with "MUST charge/discharge". There are no discharges at comets. His cult's dead dogma has none of the science Sol88 is citing. Mainstream ice and dust cometary science predicts that the solar wind will electrostatically charge dust on comets with no coma.
So, it's expected that even an ices and dust comet (not the rocky like consolidated nucleus) will charge to the floating potential.


I worry about you sometimes reality check, I really do.
__________________
“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 29th July 2020, 04:57 AM   #181
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,380
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.
I missed the part where you told us why asteroids are not rocky, and immersed in said plasma flow (because I assume that the air around planets changes everything?).

Quote:
Thornhill

Divin has confirmed this is the case.

Would this be your understanding too?
You have already conceded to JeanTate that this is irrelevant, so I'm not going to comment further.
__________________
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 29th July 2020, 07:40 AM   #182
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Irving Langmuir




Around the same time as Benioff (1924) paper. So plasma is a fairly new concept.

Seems it may be the case with yourself as well?

You'll have to assume at this time that Benioff (1924) paper requires, the later discovered, solar plasma flow('50's)?
Not so fast!

A historian may successfully reconstruct the framework within which a scientific theory was created/developed. However, in this thread we are discussing the science.

That means understanding a paper as it is written (plus whatever clarity is added by those which it cites).

And there is nothing in B24 which even hints at a solar wind like plasma.

It thus follows, logically, that the B24 Electric Comet Theory is toast ...

Quote:
Anyhoo, comets being rocky like objects MUST charge/discharge to a floating potential wrt the local solar wind conditions.

Now, what would upset this situation?
If so, then Thornhill (2007)’s Electric Comet Theory is also toast*.

For example: “The jets and surface topography of comets are consistent with EDM erosion of a cathode surface.

But of course I could be wrong.

Would you please show, in detail, how “comets must charge/discharge to a floating potential wrt the local solar wind conditions”, under T07?

*at least as I understand it

Last edited by JeanTate; 29th July 2020 at 07:43 AM.
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 29th July 2020, 01:34 PM   #183
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Not so fast!

A historian may successfully reconstruct the framework within which a scientific theory was created/developed. However, in this thread we are discussing the science.

That means understanding a paper as it is written (plus whatever clarity is added by those which it cites).

And there is nothing in B24 which even hints at a solar wind like plasma.

It thus follows, logically, that the B24 Electric Comet Theory is toast ...


If so, then Thornhill (2007)’s Electric Comet Theory is also toast*.

For example: “The jets and surface topography of comets are consistent with EDM erosion of a cathode surface.

But of course I could be wrong.

Would you please show, in detail, how “comets must charge/discharge to a floating potential wrt the local solar wind conditions”, under T07?

*at least as I understand it
How?

Like with maths and stuff?

I’m by your confusion.
__________________
“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; 29th July 2020 at 01:42 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 29th July 2020, 01:37 PM   #184
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, it's expected that even an ices and dust comet" when there are only ice and dust comets. Sol88's cult have a delusion of rocks blasted from planets by imaginary electric discharges between them as they whiz about in violation of physics - except Earth which is magic and stays in the same orbit to sustain life and climate ! That blasting causes at least hundreds of mass extinction events on the Earth !
Sol88 lies about my post by quote mining one of his lies from it. The others are his blatant lies about Benioff (1924) and his constant lie behavior of landslides on 67P making comets "rock like".
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Sol88 lies with Irving Langmuir who is not the author of Benioff (1924)
Sol88 lies with "around the same time as Benioff (1924) paper". Langmuir named partially ionized gases as plasma in 1928, 4 years after Benioff (1924)
Sol88 lies that Benioff (1924) knew about the solar wind wind that was not named until 1957. In 1924, there ware only speculation about particles being emitted by the Sun.
Sol88 continues to lie about Benioff (1924) which explicitly states that solar radiations create his assumed charge.
Sol88 persists with his "rocky like " lie (it is rocky like behavior of landslides on 67P).
Sol88 lies with "MUST charge/discharge". There are no discharges at comets. His cult's dead dogma has none of the science Sol88 is citing. Mainstream ice and dust cometary science predicts that the solar wind will electrostatically charge dust on comets with no coma.
Sol88 lies with "Now, what would upset this situation?" when Sol88 knows it is the formation of comet coma. Coma stop the solar wind from reaching the nucleus surface, the solar wind no longer electrostatically charges dust, the dust grabs charge and becomes neutral. The period of theoretical, undetected dust ejection ends. The period of observed, massive dust ejection by ices sublimating starts .
Sol88 lies about my post with "charge to the floating potential" when I did not write that as in what he quotes.
Sol88 lies with "Like with maths and stuff?" when he was asked for his electric comet source. Not in T07, so what is Sol88's source for (electric) "comets must charge/discharge to a floating potential wrt the local solar wind conditions." It is more likely that Sol88 is constantly lying by constantly derailing into irrelevant mainstream ice and dust comets in a thread about his cult's dead dogma.
Sol88 lies with "Ony?" when he knows and has cited the physical evidence saying comyes are made of ice and dust.
Sol88 lies with "Where is all the “ice”?" when he knows that we have detected ice.
Sol88 lies with "We now acknowledge Field aligned ambipolar electric fields" charge dust when that is only his ignorant fantasy.
Sol88 lies with "You have already acknowledged..." when I have stated that the solar wind.
Sol88 lies with "the electric comet model can accommodate that as a natural garden variety plasma process" when his cult completely ignores most physics. The density and composition measurements of comets. The physics and experiments that the detected ice ice must sublimate. The definition of their "thunderbolts" that needs a dielectric medium to breakdown . Then there are the lies and delusions of his cult's prophet Wal Thornhill (More about Sol88's cult, Sol88's lies and Sol88 emphasizing his cult's idiocy).
Sol88 lies with "Well studied in low earth orbit actually." when we have no comets in low Earth orbit ! We have studied the charging of spacecraft by the solar wind possibly in low Earth orbit. We have never studied the charging of comets by the solar wind because it has no measurable effects from Earth and not even from the Rosetta mission which should have joined 67P during the last part of this phase (before ices sublimating took over dust ejection from the nucleus).

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th July 2020 at 02:26 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2020, 01:54 PM   #185
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Only?

Where is all the “ice”?

We see lots of dust, Very fine and fluffy charged dust. We now acknowledge Field aligned ambipolar electric fields having a role in charging said dust.

You have already acknowledged an object immersed in a plasma flow will indeed do the above when it’s potential changes relative to the plasma flow.

How fast that change is and how large are some of the variables for comets, the electric comet model can accommodate that as a natural garden variety plasma process.

Well studied in low earth orbit actually.
__________________
“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 29th July 2020, 04:35 PM   #186
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
How?

Like with maths and stuff?

I’m by your confusion.
You are the only active ISF member in this thread who can present/explain/etc The Electric Comet Theory, and the only viable such you have cited* is T07, surely the burden to answer my simple, straightforward question is on you, right?

Take your time, it’s important that you get it right ...

*since B24 is toast
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 29th July 2020, 04:36 PM   #187
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)
498 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020
The litany of lies, etc. continues.
  1. Sol88 lies with "So, it's expected that even an ices and dust comet" when there are only ice and dust comets.
  2. Sol88 lies about my post by quote mining one of his lies from it. The others are his blatant lies about Benioff (1924) and his constant lie of the behavior of landslides on 67P making comets "rock like" when the paper explicitly mentions volatiles (ice).
  3. Sol88 lies about my post with "charge to the floating potential" when I did not write that as in what he quotes.
  4. Sol88 lies with "Like with maths and stuff?" when he was asked for his electric comet source. Not in T07, so what is Sol88's source for (electric) "comets must charge/discharge to a floating potential wrt the local solar wind conditions." It is more likely that Sol88 is constantly lying by constantly derailing into irrelevant mainstream ice and dust comets in a thread about his cult's dead dogma.
  5. Sol88 lies with "Ony?" when he knows and has cited the physical evidence saying comyes are made of ice and dust.
  6. Sol88 lies with "Where is all the “ice”?" when he knows that we have detected ice.
  7. Sol88 lies with "We now acknowledge Field aligned ambipolar electric fields" charge dust when that is only his ignorant fantasy.
  8. Sol88 lies with "You have already acknowledged..." when I have stated that the solar wind.
  9. Sol88 lies with "the electric comet model can accommodate that as a natural garden variety plasma process" when his cult completely ignores most physics.
  10. Sol88 lies with "Well studied in low earth orbit actually." when we have no comets in low Earth orbit !

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th July 2020 at 04:37 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2020, 06:07 PM   #188
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
"THE SCIENCE OF THINGS THAT AREN’T SO”

Quote:
“THE SCIENCE OF THINGS THAT AREN’T SO”


(I. Langmuir, “Pathological Science,” Colloquium at The Oak Knolls Re-search Laboratory, December 18, 1953;Physics Today42, 36, Octo-ber 1989, transcribed and edited by R.N. Hall)

•In pathological science, scientists manage to fool themselves“Symptoms of Pathological Science:

1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causitive agent of barely detectable intensity
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability
3. Claims of great accuracy
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment
6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near50% and then falls gradually to oblivion”

•Davis-Barnes effect (1929), N-rays (1904), Mitogenic rays (1923),Allison effect (1927), ESP (1934), flying saucers
Quote:
But...“Actually, the problem to construct a smooth approximation that is uniformly valid both in the plasma and sheath regions,is more a problem of aesthetics than of practical necessity....For most applications, it is sufficient to know that the plasma approximation is valid except for a thin surface layer, and that the sheath solution is (by construction!)consistently adapted to the corresponding plasma solution...These characteristics follow...from the simple sheath model in textbooks!”(K.-U. Riemann,IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci.32, 2265, 2004)
Seems accurate


The thin surface layer is were all the action is at! Ambipolar electric field (Plasma Double Layer)!
__________________
“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; 29th July 2020 at 06:14 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 29th July 2020, 06:56 PM   #189
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 an irrelevant link to a 1953 talk not on comets or the Sun. It is nothing to do with the mainstream ice and dust cometary science that is based on centuries of physics and empirical evidence.
Sol88 emphasizes that his cult's dogma is deluded with a "Pathological Science" talk almost matching Sol88's cult.
Quote:
1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causitive agent of barely detectable intensity
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability
3. Claims of great accuracy
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment
6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near50% and then falls gradually to oblivion”
  1. The Thunderbolts cult almost has "causitive agents of barely detectable intensity".
    An invisible massive solar electric field and undetected electric currents powering the Sun and stars.
  2. The Thunderbolts cult effects are not detectable.
    No radiation from electric discharges at comets. No fusion in the solar atmosphere.
  3. The Thunderbolts cult makes unsupported claims of "great accuracy".
    Sol88 and his cult claim that they have a better theory than the accurate mainstream.
  4. The Thunderbolts cult dogma is fantastic theories contrary to experience.
    Experience tells us that rock has a higher density than that measured for snow (comets are not rocks). Anyone who cooks knows that eternally heated objects eventually become uniform in temperature (the interior of the Sun is hotter than the ~5700 K photosphere).
  5. The Thunderbolts cult either ignores criticisms or makes up "ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment".
    Rosetta measured the density of 67P. The cult responded with a fantasy of Rosetta or nucleus being charged. Apply physics and the charge has to be giga-volts.
  6. The Thunderbolts cult ratio of supporters to critics is "falling gradually to oblivion".
    Actually the ratio was always zero. The cult never had any supporters in the relevant sciences.
Sol88 lies with "The thin surface layer is were all the action is at!". The quote from an irrelevant talk on mainstream plasma physics is that a smooth approximation in plasma is not valid in a thin surface layer.
Sol88 lies with "Ambipolar electric field" which is in comet coma where that plasma approximation above applies.
Sol88 lies with "Plasma Double Layer" which are physically impossible at comets.

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th July 2020 at 07:08 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 30th July 2020, 10:23 PM   #190
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,667
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Seems accurate


The thin surface layer is were all the action is at! Ambipolar electric field (Plasma Double Layer)!
AS Reality Check says, every point ticks the EC 'model' perfectly. Have you finally opened your eyes to the evidence?

I doubt it, I suspect we'll get a nice number 5 as 'answer'
Lukraak_Sisser 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 30th July 2020, 11:13 PM   #191
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
AS Reality Check says, every point ticks the EC 'model' perfectly. Have you finally opened your eyes to the evidence?

I doubt it, I suspect we'll get a nice number 5 as 'answer'
1. would be more appropriate.

published 2020 January 29

Quote:
is thought to affect dust grain charging processes (Gombosi et al. 2015).
Divin


I'd say that's is new not 1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causitive agent of barely detectable intensity is well and truly detectable just has NO place in the dirtysnowball.

Quote:
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability
[i]kinetic mechanism that is responsible for the bulk electron energization that creates the suprathermal distribution from the warm background of solar wind electrons /I]

The effect is obviously very local for this situation, see But...“Actually, the problem to construct a smooth approximation that is uniformly valid both in the plasma and sheath regions,is more a problem of aesthetics than of practical necessity....For most applications, it is sufficient to know that the plasma approximation is valid except for a thin surface layer, and that the sheath solution is (by construction!)consistently adapted to the corresponding plasma solution...These characteristics follow...from the simple sheath model in textbooks!”(K.-U. Riemann,IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci.32, 2265, 2004)
__________________
“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 30th July 2020, 11:15 PM   #192
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
AS Reality Check says, every point ticks the EC 'model' perfectly. Have you finally opened your eyes to the evidence?

I doubt it, I suspect we'll get a nice number 5 as 'answer'
Would an object (in this case a comet) charge/discharge to the floating potential of the surrounding plasma?

Not sure if you answered or not...
__________________
“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 31st July 2020, 12:01 AM   #193
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,667
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Would an object (in this case a comet) charge/discharge to the floating potential of the surrounding plasma?

Not sure if you answered or not...
Have you every answered anything about the actual EC model? Maybe give an overview? A set of predicted and extrapolated effects?

Oh wait, then you run into number 4 again, like when you claimed the sun was positive yet failed to explain how nothing that would happen is the sun WAS positive actually is observed.

Hence your continuous evasions and inability to actually describe your model in detail which you try to hide by asking pointless questions.

After all the one you are asking now is the equivalent of asking about what glass would be used in windows assuming we can build on clouds. By focusing on that detail you try ignore the fact that the main premise is false.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 31st July 2020, 01:02 AM   #194
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Have you every answered anything about the actual EC model? Maybe give an overview? A set of predicted and extrapolated effects?

Oh wait, then you run into number 4 again, like when you claimed the sun was positive yet failed to explain how nothing that would happen is the sun WAS positive actually is observed.

Hence your continuous evasions and inability to actually describe your model in detail which you try to hide by asking pointless questions.

After all the one you are asking now is the equivalent of asking about what glass would be used in windows assuming we can build on clouds. By focusing on that detail you try ignore the fact that the main premise is false.
The ELECTRIC COMET THEORY says comet nuclei are charged objects.

You were giv'n a mechanism. You evade the question...
__________________
“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; 31st July 2020 at 01:08 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 31st July 2020, 03:58 AM   #195
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,667
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The ELECTRIC COMET THEORY says comet nuclei are charged objects.

You were giv'n a mechanism. You evade the question...
Oh goody.
So, what charge do they have? Postive or negative and how large is that charge?
And of course, are you still sticking with your 'the sun is positively charged' part of the theory?
Lukraak_Sisser 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 31st July 2020, 04:38 AM   #196
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 "1. would be more appropriate." when he quotes Divin et . al which is mainstream ice and dust cometary science referencing mainstream ice and dust cometary science
]Sol88 lies by quote mining and not citing Devin et al.
Sol88 lies with "I'd say that's is new" when he quotes "(Gombosi et al. 2015)" and dust being charged in coma is textbook astronomy. The Rosetta mission, planned from 1993, had instruments deigned to detect charged dust !
Sol88 lies with "1. The maximum effect that is observed...." when it is his cult's dead dogma that is close to I. Langmuir's “Pathological Science,” talk.
Sol88 lies with "2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability." when it is his cult's dead dogma that is close to I. Langmuir's “Pathological Science,” talk.
Sol88 lies with "kinetic mechanism that is responsible for the bulk electron energization..." when this is mainstream ice and dust cometary science.
Sol88 lies with "The effect is obviously very local for this situation" when this is neutral dust being charged throughout the coma.
Sol88 lies with "“Actually, the problem is .." which is textbook plasma physics irrelevant to his cult's dead dogma.
Sol88 lies with his repeated answered, irrelevant and lying comet "charge/discharge" question.
Sol88 lies yet again by blindly parroting his cult's dead dogma rather than answering questions.
Sol88 lies about his cult's dead dogma yet again. Sol88's cult has a "comets are charged rocks with electric discharge and EDM" delusions.
Sol88 lies with "You were giv'n a mechanism." when Sol88 cites and lies about mainstream ice and dust cometary mechanisms such as the solar wind theoretically ejecting undetected dust from temporarily before ejection from sublimating ices takes over and the coma shields the nucleus. The Thunderbolts cult lies and fantasies are not scientific mechanisms.

Last edited by Reality Check; 31st July 2020 at 04:47 AM.
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 31st July 2020, 04:45 AM   #197
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)
508 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020

The litany of lies, etc. continues.
  1. Sol88 lies with an irrelevant link to a 1953 talk not on comets or the Sun.
  2. Sol88 emphasizes that his cult's dogma is deluded with a "Pathological Science" talk almost matching Sol88's cult.
  3. Sol88 lies with "1. would be more appropriate." when he quotes a "Divin" paper which is mainstream ice and dust cometary science referencing mainstream ice and dust cometary science
  4. Sol88 lies by quote mining and not citing a "Divin" paper
    Maybe 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
  5. Sol88 lies with "I'd say that's is new" when he quotes "(Gombosi et al. 2015)" and dust being charged in coma is textbook astronomy.
  6. Sol88 lies with "1. The maximum effect that is observed...." when it is his cult's dead dogma that is close to I. Langmuir's “Pathological Science,” talk.
  7. Sol88 lies with "2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability." when it is his cult's dead dogma that is close to I. Langmuir's “Pathological Science,” talk.
  8. Sol88 lies with "kinetic mechanism that is responsible for the bulk electron energization..." when this is mainstream ice and dust cometary science.
  9. Sol88 lies with "The effect is obviously very local for this situation" when this is neutral dust being charged throughout the coma.
  10. Sol88 lies with "“Actually, the problem is .." which is textbook plasma physics irrelevant to his cult's dead dogma.
  11. Sol88 lies with his repeated answered, irrelevant and lying comet "charge/discharge" question.
  12. Sol88 lies yet again by blindly parroting his cult's dead dogma rather than answering questions.
  13. Sol88 lies about his cult's dead dogma yet again. Sol88's cult has a "comets are charged rocks with electric discharge and EDM" delusions.
  14. Sol88 lies with "You were giv'n a mechanism." when Sol88 cites and lies about mainstream ice and dust cometary mechanisms.

Last edited by Reality Check; 31st July 2020 at 04:53 AM.
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 31st July 2020, 05:06 AM   #198
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Sol88 lies every time he cites A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron ..."

Sol88 lies every time he cites A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet by Devin, Deca, etc. (2020 January 29) which is mainstream ice and dust cometary science. This is not Sol88's fantasies and lies. This is not the Thunderbolts cult lies and delusions that make up their dead dogma.
More about Sol88's cult, Sol88's lies and Sol88 emphasizing his cult's idiocy.

Sol88 constantly lies by quote mining this quote.
Quote:
One of the surprising findings of the Rosetta mission is the presence of suprathermal electrons in the close cometary plasma environment with energies up to about 100 eV.

The population was present already during the weakly outgassing phases of 67P’s orbit around the Sun (Clark et al. 2015). Understanding the suprathermal electron population is important, since increased fluxes of the latter have been shown to strongly affect also the cometary ionosphere via electron impact ionization (Galand et al. 2016), charge exchange (Wedlund et al. 2017; Heritier et al. 2018), and is thought to affect dust grain charging processes (Gombosi et al. 2015).
None of this science is Sol88's dead 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 31st July 2020, 05:39 AM   #199
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation How Sol88 and Wal Thornhill make the electric comet deluded with EDM

We have been thru this before over the 11 years of this thread but I have time to show again that Sol88 is making his cult dogma deluded by emphasizing their EDM delusion again and again.
Previously Sol88 empathizes the lies and delusions of his cult prophet Wal Thornihill.
This is electric discharge machining (EDM). On of Thornill's delusions is the the EDM delusion.
  • It is deluded to state that an industrial process must happen in nature. It is akin to claiming antelope are powered by internal combustion engines !
  • It is deluded to ignore that EDM uses a liquid dielectric medium that does not exist at comets. Making this more deluded, is that this liquid dielectric has to be refreshed during EDM.
  • It is deluded to ignore that EDM uses sparks that are not seen at comets.
  • It is deluded to claim that EDM of metals happens at comets. Even a lie of comets being rock does not help much.
Sol88 and Thornhill also make the electric comet deluded by claiming that EDM machined surfaces under high magnification look like comet surfaces and that EDM burns the entire surface black with "soot". Anyone with a brain and eyes see that they are different. EDM produces a bright surface on metal. Comets are not covered in soot. EDM produces a fairly uniformly cratered surface with presumably a crater per spark. We have known for decades that comets are not covered with craters. Comet Borrelly in 2001 was not covered in craters. Comet Tempel 1 in 2005 was not covered in craters, and had plains and cliffs. Comet 67P in 2015 was not covered in craters, and had plains, dunes, cliffs, pits, etc. The surface of Comet 67P/Churyumove–Gerasimenko is almost devoid of recognisable impact craters (a candidate for a crater from in-falling material). Thes impact craters are what the cult want to be EDM craters.

Last edited by Reality Check; 31st July 2020 at 05:43 AM.
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 31st July 2020, 04:51 PM   #200
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,649
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Oh goody.
So, what charge do they have? Postive or negative and how large is that charge?
And of course, are you still sticking with your 'the sun is positively charged' part of the theory?
Electric Comets says they are negatively charged with respect to the sun.

How large?

Well, you haven’t really answered my question and it does have a direct bearing on what we are discussing.

Can an object charge/discharge in the solar plasma stream?
__________________
“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
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 09:58 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.