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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 28th November 2018, 01:32 AM   #681
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,040
Quote:
You get shown papers that shatters your world view and a tantrum will ensue
.

No, you LIAR, you haven't shown a single paper where rock has been detected. We are still waiting. A'Hearn referenced his remark, and the two references do not detect anything other than dust. How pathetic it is when your impossible model is shown to be the crap we knew it all was, that you have to keep banging on about non-existent things to try to make some sort of point. You lost, woo boy. The idiot Thornhill was wrong. No rock, no discharges. Now start presenting some evidence, or ST*U.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

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

Last edited by jonesdave116; 28th November 2018 at 03:23 AM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 01:34 AM   #682
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,040
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I take it you read DEEP IMPACT: THE FIRST SECOND. H. J. Melosh ?
Yes, I read ALL of the DI papers, and they kill the idiotic EC model stone dead. Want me to link them? Again?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 01:35 AM   #683
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,290
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Thank you jt!

Question for you what is the mainstream cometary model? Do you know or just here for the occasional drive by trolling?
In this thread, my focus is on your Electric Comet idea. I intend to try to keep you focused on that too.

Sadly, I think what several others have said is right... this thread does not, any longer, belong in a board about science.

Quote:

<stuff irrelevant to Sol88’s Electric Comet idea snipped>
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 01:35 AM   #684
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,116
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
You could start by downloading some data and doing your own analyses. Or you could sign up for an online course in basic physics, and work your way to a basic understanding of plasma physics. Had you done either of those things 12 years ago, we might now be having an intelligent discussion.


How about you not use the logical fallacy, Argument from Authority?

As I have already said, the relevant data are consistent with at least some comets being “mostly space”. This is inconsistent with your Electric Comet idea. You think otherwise? Do the analyses to show it!
Why?

Institutionalized science is a dead end.

For instace ask um, i dont know say a SUPER DUPER SPACE PLASMA PHYSACIST what the composition of comets is?

Just ask a very basic question such as um.. i dont know, (c) What are comets made of?

Quote:
At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].

Nevertheless, there is still considerable uncertainty about even this basic parameter, not least of which is that most measurements are subject to selection effects in removing refractories from the nucleus to the coma, where they are observed as dust.
See what kinda of answer you get.

Prediction you wont because it's not a SUPER DUPER SPACE PLASMA PHYSICIST job!

And there in a nut shell you have the problem that even Alfven commented on.


So the PROBLEM IS institutionalized science. Not great paradigm changes have EVER come from institutionalized science just the repeat of DOGMA and blind faith!

Almost religious like.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 01:36 AM   #685
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,040
Quote:
Want me to email any of A'Hearn's colleagues, you pathetic LIAR?
Going to avoid this, chicken boy?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 01:39 AM   #686
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,040
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Why?

Institutionalized science is a dead end.

For instace ask um, i dont know say a SUPER DUPER SPACE PLASMA PHYSACIST what the composition of comets is?

Just ask a very basic question such as um.. i dont know, (c) What are comets made of?



See what kinda of answer you get.

Prediction you wont because it's not a SUPER DUPER SPACE PLASMA PHYSICIST job!

And there in a nut shell you have the problem that even Alfven commented on.


So the PROBLEM IS institutionalized science. Not great paradigm changes have EVER come from institutionalized science just the repeat of DOGMA and blind faith!

Almost religious like.
Pathetic, conspiracist word salad. Lol. Can't do science, can you, woo boy? Only faith. Pathetic.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 01:40 AM   #687
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,290
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I take it you read DEEP IMPACT: THE FIRST SECOND. H. J. Melosh ?
I take it that you have yet to show any quantitative evidence that comets are ROCK.

I also take it that you have done essentially nothing in the way of plasma physics based quantitative analyses of data relevant to the “Electric” part of your Electric Comet idea.

When do you plan to start doing either, may I be so bold as to ask?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 01:44 AM   #688
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,040
Quote:
So the PROBLEM IS institutionalized science. Not great paradigm changes have EVER come from institutionalized science just the repeat of DOGMA and blind faith!
Too useless to do the analysis, being incapable of understanding it, he resorts to idiotic conspiracist whining! Instruments took that data. Go find the discharges (lol) in the mag data. Instead of pretending that they are there. Go find the rock from any number of instruments that would see it. Instead of lying about it being there. Simple. If you can't or won't do that, what is the point in carrying on posting here? You lost. Get over it like a man, instead of behaving like a spoilt child. Grow a pair.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 01:47 AM   #689
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,290
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
<stuff not relevant to Sol88’s Electric Comet idea snipped >
Does your reply mean that you have no intention of doing any quantitative analyses of relevant data, on the composition of comets, say?

That you have no intention of learning enough basic plasma physics to undertake your own, quantitative, analyses of data relevant to the “Electric” part of your idea?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 01:49 AM   #690
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,040
Quote:
I take it you read DEEP IMPACT: THE FIRST SECOND. H. J. Melosh ?
Which is two lines from a conference oral. Where is the data in a real paper? And what relevance has it to the EC idiocy?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 01:58 AM   #691
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,040
The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1
Jessica M. Sunshine, Olivier Groussin, Peter H. Schultz, Michael F. A’Hearn, Lori M. Feaga, Tony L. Farnham, Kenneth P. Klaasen
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5ab...2a50dd12a3.pdf

Quote:
Abstract
The Deep Impact flyby spacecraft includes a 1.05 to 4.8 μm infrared (IR) spectrometer. Although ice was not observed on the surface in the impact region, strong absorptions near 3 μm due to water ice are detected in IR measurements of the ejecta from the impact event. Absorptions from water ice occur throughout the IR dataset beginning three seconds after impact through the end of observations, ∼ 45 min after impact.
Spatially and temporally resolved IR spectra of the ejecta are analyzed in conjunction with laboratory impact experiments. The results imply an internal stratigraphy for Tempel 1 consisting of devolatilized materials transitioning to unaltered components at a depth of approximately one meter. At greater depths, which are thermally isolated from the surface, water ice is present. Up to depths of 10 to 20 m, the maximum depths excavated by the impact, these pristine materials consist of very fine grained (∼1 ± 1 μm) water ice particles, which are free from refractory impurities.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 02:13 AM   #692
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,040
And the above paper should have been where even the truly brainwashed acolytes of the electric comet woo, such as Sol, should have binned it.

Along with;

Investigation of dust and water ice in comet 9P/Tempel 1 from Spitzer observations of the Deep Impact event
Gicquel, A. et al.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pd...aa18718-11.pdf

From the abstract;

Quote:
A sustained production of water is observed, which can be explained by the sublimation of pure ice grains with sizes less than 1 μm and comprising a mass of ice of (0.8 − 1.8) × 107 kg.
Along with;

Detection of water ice grains after the DEEP IMPACT onto Comet 9P/Tempel 1
Schulz, R. et al.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pd...12/aahi281.pdf

From the abstract;

Quote:
Methods. The comet was observed with the XMM-Newton Observatory. We used the EPIC camera for X-ray imaging and the Optical Monitor for monitoring in the ultraviolet and visible spectral range.
Results. An outburst of the comet nucleus was observed as a result of the impact and the evolution of the coma was monitored in gas and dust. Our observations led to the first detection of icy grains in a comet at 1.5 AU from the Sun.
Conclusions. We showed for the first time that the material ejected from the nucleus of a comet contains icy grains, even at small heliocentric distance
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 02:26 AM   #693
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,040
Those previously linked papers have never been dealt with by the authors of the electric comet woo. You will find no reference to those findings, nor the veritable snowstorm around Hartley 2, on Thunderdolts, nor hollowscience. Completely ignored, as they carried on trying to sell their lunacy to the hard of thinking. This tells you everything you need to know about the EC 'model', and the people behind it. As Tim Thompson once said, the Electric Comet woo is stupid and dishonest;

Quote:
The Thunderbolts / plasma universe & etc. comet pages are stupid and dishonest. They claim successful predictions that were not successful and they claim failures of standard theory that are not failures. Trust them at your own peril.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1116
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

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

Last edited by jonesdave116; 28th November 2018 at 02:28 AM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:22 AM   #694
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,040
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I take it you read DEEP IMPACT: THE FIRST SECOND. H. J. Melosh ?
And the relevance of that is......? Silicate dust turns into molten silicate dust due to high velocity impact. What's the big deal?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:29 AM   #695
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,040
Quote:
Oh Oh and Wal Thornhills prediction that there would be two flashes!
No, he predicted a pre-impact flash. He was wrong. He predicted the electric woo causing the non-existent pre-impact flash would be seen in x-ray. It wasn't. He was wrong. He is still lying about it to this day. He is a liar.
And Pete Schultz has already predicted a two stage plume, with an initial weak flash, based on modelling for the impact. It pre-dated Thornhill's woo.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 12:08 PM   #696
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,290
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Quote:
Oh Oh and Wal Thornhills prediction that there would be two flashes!
No, he predicted a pre-impact flash. He was wrong. He predicted the electric woo causing the non-existent pre-impact flash would be seen in x-ray. It wasn't. He was wrong. He is still lying about it to this day. He is a liar.
And Pete Schultz has already predicted a two stage plume, with an initial weak flash, based on modelling for the impact. It pre-dated Thornhill's woo.
I didn't realize that this exact thing (Thornhill's specific "prediction") is the topic of quite a few posts in the ancient CQ thread RC provided a link to!

You'll find that Sol88 strenuously resisted answering any questions on this; specifically, he rubbished the very idea that someone could even ask for the (detailed) reasoning (and calculations, etc) behind the prediction. IOW, about as clear an example of virulent anti-science as you could ever ask for.

One person over at CQ (Vander_L) did at least try to address this (well, the larger questions about where Thornhill's "predictions" came from, in terms of known physics), but Sol88 would have none of it.

Yet another reason for closing this thread, or at least moving it to somewhere that nothing to do with science ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 12:14 PM   #697
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,469
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
I would agree to an extent, although I feel the founding principles are firmly based on Velikovsky's woo*. That, of course, morphed into Talbott's Saturnist woo, which is around the time that he and Thornhill became the gruesome twosome. Everything they believe and promote is based on that fundamental, unscientific, physics defying nonsense.
Hence the electric comet needing to be rock, because they say it was blasted off a planet by a giant thunderbolt (lol), most likely at the time Earth was orbiting Saturn and/or Venus was performing handbrake turns around the solar system. This being due to Venus coming within spitting distance of Earth and Mars, causing the aforementioned non-existent thunderbolt.
It can also be traced back to the nonsense entitled 'Cosmos Without Gravitation', by the uber-loon Velikovsky. It is why Thornhill, armed with his BSc, wants to overturn everything we know about gravity, and turn it into some sort of EM effect. Constant G screws up his Saturn, Venus and comet fairy tales. He knows it breaks the laws of physics, so this incompetent tool is going to rewrite said laws (lol).
And then we have Scott, who tries to resurrect Juergens' stupid electric Sun idea, and makes a complete arse of himself in the process. I'm not sure when Scott threw in his hand with this **** fest of woo.
All the stuff about Birkeland and Alfven is just to try to make it appear that there is some sort of scientific foundation to their nonsense.
It is hilariously sad that apparently sane people have fallen for this crap. One can only invoke extreme scientific illiteracy in mitigation for them.

* https://web.archive.org/web/19980615...euniverse.html

Thanks, jd, you spotted an ambiguity I didn't catch. I meant it was the foundation that sustains the EC; if all else fails they invoke a CT that can't be disproven. But your interpretation is the one most people would assume.

Thanks for the history lesson. You filled in some gaps in my understanding of how the EC got to its present lamentable and laughable state.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 12:21 PM   #698
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
None of the ideas behind the EC have any validity, the electrical charges needed to produce the effects are absent.
The density of comets blatantly show they are not asteroids in anyway.

But it is like wrestling an evangelical, you get covered in mud and they claim victory
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 12:51 PM   #699
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,040
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I didn't realize that this exact thing (Thornhill's specific "prediction") is the topic of quite a few posts in the ancient CQ thread RC provided a link to!

You'll find that Sol88 strenuously resisted answering any questions on this; specifically, he rubbished the very idea that someone could even ask for the (detailed) reasoning (and calculations, etc) behind the prediction. IOW, about as clear an example of virulent anti-science as you could ever ask for.

One person over at CQ (Vander_L) did at least try to address this (well, the larger questions about where Thornhill's "predictions" came from, in terms of known physics), but Sol88 would have none of it.

Yet another reason for closing this thread, or at least moving it to somewhere that nothing to do with science ...
Yes, it was all to do with the comet supposedly being charged, and then discharging to the incoming impactor. He even stressed that "Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile,..."*. This is still on the TB site as a successful prediction! What Thornie didn't tell his acolytes was that Chandra and SWIFT were monitoring the comet around the time of impact, and saw zilch in x-ray, until some seconds after impact, and these were soft x-rays, at a level consistent with the freshly produced vapour CXing with the solar wind;

Chandra observations of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 during the Deep Impact campaign
Lisse, C. M. et al.
http://ftp.astro.umd.edu/pub/lisse/x..._18jul2007.pdf

SWIFT X-RAY TELESCOPE OBSERVATIONS OF THE DEEP IMPACT COLLISION
Willingale, R. et al.
https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/results/...9_541_2006.pdf

And, not only did his electrical flash fail to happen, but he wasn't even the first to predict a double flash! That was done by Pete Schultz at the NASA Ames gun lab, following impact experiments;

Quote:
In this scenario (and in Scenario 1b), a three-component plume should be observed in the MRI and may allow the identification of this surface property.
i.T = 0.06 s (first frame): very weak flash.
ii.T = 1s (~17 frames): high-angle jet-like plasma plume due to cavitation and redirection back out the penetration funnel.
iii.T=1 to 20s: opaque spherical cloud forming a shadow above the
comet surface.
iv.T = 20 s to 100 s: high-angle ejecta plume extending >
10 km above the surface surrounded by a high-angle (~60?) ejecta curtain.
v.T > 200 s: advancing annulus of disturbed cometary surface near the
crater as low-velocity components return. High-angle central plume
may detach from the crater due to collapse and shut off of deep ejecta
EXPECTATIONS FOR CRATER SIZE AND PHOTOMETRIC EVOLUTION FROM THE DEEP IMPACT COLLISION
Schultz, P. H. et al.
https://pds-smallbodies.astro.umd.ed...tn_schultz.pdf

(Received 20 Aug 2004, accepted 10 Jan 2005)

* https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2...redictions.htm
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 01:00 PM   #700
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,040
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Thanks, jd, you spotted an ambiguity I didn't catch. I meant it was the foundation that sustains the EC; if all else fails they invoke a CT that can't be disproven. But your interpretation is the one most people would assume.

Thanks for the history lesson. You filled in some gaps in my understanding of how the EC got to its present lamentable and laughable state.
Yes, it is all very weird stuff. Most of what I know about the history of it comes from Tim Thompson, who was battling these loons since the 90's.
Here is a copy of a newsgroup confrontation between Tim and the loon Thornhill, from 1998;

http://www.tim-thompson.com/grey-areas.html

Although there have been excellent debunkings of this lunacy from Tom Bridgman and Brian Koberlein, among others, nobody gave them a kicking like Tim used to, IMHO
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 01:51 PM   #701
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,407
Thumbs down A insane and lying question to derail from him calling M. A'Hearn insane ...

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Are you calling M.A'Hearn stupid?
A insane and lying question to derail from him calling M. A'Hearn insane enough to believe that comets are actual rocks as in Sol88's electric comet insanity.

M. A'Hearn was an intelligent, rational astronomer , e.g. SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) has 1150 abstracts with A'Hearn, Michael F. as an author!

Sol88 accuses an intelligent, rational astronomer of being insane yet again
Insane "HIGH PRIEST" rant, lies and insults to detail from his electric comet insanity.
Repeats his insane accusation of A’Hearn believing that comets are actual ROCK as in his electric comet insanity [fourth time].

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th November 2018 at 02:28 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 01:58 PM   #702
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,407
Thumbs down An insanely insane about Wal Thornhill's flashes prediction

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
DEEP IMPACT: THE FIRST SECOND. H. J. Melosh

Oh Oh and Wal Thornhills prediction that there would be two flashes!
An insane lie about Wal Thornhill's prediction (a flash before impact + a flash) !

The lie is insane because of 18 November 2010: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions by Wal Thornhill
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 02:17 PM   #703
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,407
Thumbs down Quotes the deranged liar Wal Thornhill being deluded and lying

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
It's not irrelevent except by those that wish to suppress instead of evolve!
Quotes the deranged liar Wal Thornhill being deluded and lying !

This is Thornhill lying about having "quite specific predictions".
This is Thornhill lying about having "satisfied" predictions.
This a deranged Thornhill thinking that his cult has a model of comets that science would be interested in.
This a deranged Thornhill thinking that dogma overwhelming known only within his cult would cause a rethink of actual sceince..
This is a paranoid Thornhill complaining about an imaginary "monoculture". The reason that no astronomer believes in comets being rocks is the overwhelming physical evidence that comets are dust and ices ! Add the rest of the electric comet insanity and only ignorant and/or deluded people would believe in it.

18 November 2010: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions by Wal Thornhill
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th November 2018 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 Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 02:23 PM   #704
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,407
Thumbs down Emphasizes the deranged liar Wal Thornhill lies about Deep Impact

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I take it you read DEEP IMPACT: THE FIRST SECOND. H. J. Melosh ?
Emphasizes the deranged liar Wal Thornhill lies about Deep Impact.

18 November 2010: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions by Wal Thornhill
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 02:27 PM   #705
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,407
Thumbs down "Institutionalized science is a dead end" delusion and insane lies

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Institutionalized science is a dead end.
"Institutionalized science is a dead end" delusion and insane lies to derail from his electric comet insanity

Sceince works. We hare a successful and improving understanding of comets.

Everyone here has told him what the composition of comets is (dust and ices).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:13 PM   #706
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,116
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
And the above paper should have been where even the truly brainwashed acolytes of the electric comet woo, such as Sol, should have binned it.

Along with;

Investigation of dust and water ice in comet 9P/Tempel 1 from Spitzer observations of the Deep Impact event
Gicquel, A. et al.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pd...aa18718-11.pdf

From the abstract;



Along with;

Detection of water ice grains after the DEEP IMPACT onto Comet 9P/Tempel 1
Schulz, R. et al.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pd...12/aahi281.pdf

From the abstract;

I like that but why do asteroids have more water than comets?

Wet Asteriods

When mainstream get that little problem sorted perhaps we can discuss that comets are 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
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:15 PM   #707
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,116
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
None of the ideas behind the EC have any validity, the electrical charges needed to produce the effects are absent.
The density of comets blatantly show they are not asteroids in anyway.

But it is like wrestling an evangelical, you get covered in mud and they claim victory
nOOb.

You do realise we are now talking electric curcuit theory wrt comets?


See you again in a few more pages.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:23 PM   #708
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,290
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I like that but why do asteroids have more water than comets?

Wet Asteriods

When mainstream get that little problem sorted perhaps we can discuss that comets are rocky bodies.
And this is relevant to your Electric Comet idea, how exactly?

When may we expect you to even start presenting a scientific case for your idea? You know, what this thread is supposed to be about?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:24 PM   #709
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,116
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Thanks, jd, you spotted an ambiguity I didn't catch. I meant it was the foundation that sustains the EC; if all else fails they invoke a CT that can't be disproven. But your interpretation is the one most people would assume.

Thanks for the history lesson. You filled in some gaps in my understanding of how the EC got to its present lamentable and laughable state.
X-wind, Grand tack, Nice

Handbrake turns indeed.

How did the refractory minerals end up in the very icy comet Wild2?

Ha ha joker!
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:25 PM   #710
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,290
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
nOOb.

You do realise we are now talking electric curcuit theory wrt comets?


See you again in a few more pages.
"electric curcuit [sic] theory wrt comets"

Is this yet another impossible thing you dreamed up before breakfast? Without the benefit of even basic physics, let alone plasma physics?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:26 PM   #711
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,290
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
X-wind, Grand tack, Nice

Handbrake turns indeed.

How did the refractory minerals end up in the very icy comet Wild2?

Ha ha joker!
Yet another trolling attempt to derail this thread?

You know, we're supposed to be discussing the scientific case for your Electric Comet idea, remember?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:26 PM   #712
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,116
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
And this is relevant to your Electric Comet idea, how exactly?

When may we expect you to even start presenting a scientific case for your idea? You know, what this thread is supposed to be about?
Comets and Asteroids are a continuum!


Not distinct objects. Unlike the old idea that comets were mostly ice and asteroids are mostly rock.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:31 PM   #713
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,116
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Yet another trolling attempt to derail this thread?

You know, we're supposed to be discussing the scientific case for your Electric Comet idea, remember?
No you need more than one model to test and compare.

Gravity only has been shown to be inadequate.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:38 PM   #714
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,290
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Originally Posted by JeanTate
Originally Posted by Sol88
I like that but why do asteroids have more water than comets?

Wet Asteriods

When mainstream get that little problem sorted perhaps we can discuss that comets are rocky bodies.
And this is relevant to your Electric Comet idea, how exactly?

When may we expect you to even start presenting a scientific case for your idea? You know, what this thread is supposed to be about?
Comets and Asteroids are a continuum!


Not distinct objects. Unlike the old idea that comets were mostly ice and asteroids are mostly rock.
IOW, no relevance at all.

Or, in plain English, more trolling, perhaps in an attempt to divert readers from the fact that, so far, you have failed to present a scientific case for your idea? You know, what this thread is supposed to be about?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:42 PM   #715
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,116
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Does your reply mean that you have no intention of doing any quantitative analyses of relevant data, on the composition of comets, say?

That you have no intention of learning enough basic plasma physics to undertake your own, quantitative, analyses of data relevant to the “Electric” part of your idea?
Can’t do it.


Common sense and life experience counts as well.

Pure theoretical physics is nothing more than farietales and fiction.

But I digress.


SAFIRE have already had a win and my money’s on them PROVING with peer review papers and the data returned from Parker solar probe.

So unfortunately for me SAFIRE will prove the Sun has a radial electric field not the other way round.

Not that I could prove it any way, not with out the E=MC2 type Majik equation.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:43 PM   #716
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,290
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Originally Posted by JeanTate
Originally Posted by Sol88
X-wind, Grand tack, Nice

Handbrake turns indeed.

How did the refractory minerals end up in the very icy comet Wild2?

Ha ha joker!
Yet another trolling attempt to derail this thread?

You know, we're supposed to be discussing the scientific case for your Electric Comet idea, remember?
No you need more than one model to test and compare.

Gravity only has been shown to be inadequate.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (it says "Sisyphus had is easy").

Everyone who reads posts in this thread knows that a core part of your idea is the logical fallacy False Dichotomy (it has other names too).

But even we accept your unscientific belief, it still doesn't work!

Why not? Because, so far, you have presented nothing which resembles a model, as in an "Electric Comet model".

So, instead of more trolling, why not roll up your sleeves and work on presenting a scientific case for your Electric Comet idea? You know, what this thread is supposed to be about?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:45 PM   #717
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,116
So more than happy to bide my time (‘cos I’m just a interested lay person with no maths skills at all) and watch while the mainstream have no choice but to come up with a new model to be able to reconcile the data from Rosetta.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:48 PM   #718
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,290
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Originally Posted by JeanTate
Does your reply mean that you have no intention of doing any quantitative analyses of relevant data, on the composition of comets, say?

That you have no intention of learning enough basic plasma physics to undertake your own, quantitative, analyses of data relevant to the “Electric” part of your idea?
Can’t do it.
Thank you for your frank admission.

Quote:
Common sense and life experience counts as well.

Pure theoretical physics is nothing more than farietales and fiction.

But I digress.


SAFIRE have already had a win and my money’s on them PROVING with peer review papers and the data returned from Parker solar probe.

So unfortunately for me SAFIRE will prove the Sun has a radial electric field not the other way round.

Not that I could prove it any way, not with out the E=MC2 type Majik equation.
Good.

So now we can ask the Admins/Mods to either close this thread or move it somewhere else, so no one can possibly be confused that it's about science.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:49 PM   #719
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,116
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (it says "Sisyphus had is easy").

Everyone who reads posts in this thread knows that a core part of your idea is the logical fallacy False Dichotomy (it has other names too).

But even we accept your unscientific belief, it still doesn't work!

Why not? Because, so far, you have presented nothing which resembles a model, as in an "Electric Comet model".

So, instead of more trolling, why not roll up your sleeves and work on presenting a scientific case for your Electric Comet idea? You know, what this thread is supposed to be about?
Are you looking for some equation or some thing or something along the lines of Whipples “model”?

Because “Comets are rocky bodies discharging in the solar plasma flow” is not as technical as “A comet is an icy small Solar System body that, when passing close to the Sun, warms and begins to release gases, a process called outgassing. This produces a visible atmosphere or coma, and sometimes also a tail.”

You tell m the difference sweet pea.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 03:50 PM   #720
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,116
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thank you for your frank admission.


Good.

So now we can ask the Admins/Mods to either close this thread or move it somewhere else, so no one can possibly be confused that it's about science.

Are you interested in talking plasma curcuit theory?

Or dummy spit and get your knickers all bunch 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

Last edited by Sol88; 28th November 2018 at 03:51 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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.