The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V - Page 15

jonesdave116 · 8th November 2019, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

So you deny electric current flowing down the tail of comets?

No wonder you struggle with the electric comet.

So funny.

Still, there they are. Don’t believe me, ask tusenfem. I did, no answer either.

Seems everyone here a little scared of admitting this mainstream fact.

And more lies. Currents were expected to be in comet tails, long before your cult was invented. We even flew through the tail of 21P/G-Z in 1985! It seems that this is news to you;

The Giacobini‐Zinner magnetotail: Tail configuration and current sheet
McComas, D. J. et al. (1987)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....A092iA02p01139

Sol88 · 8th November 2019, 05:09 AM

Old news dude, wrong model again.

From the paper you linked to

Quote:

MHD continuity, momentum, and energy equations are combined with the plasma and field observations to determine unmeasured plasma properties at ICE and upstream at the average point along each streamline where the cometary ions are picked up.

MHD, lol.

Belz... · 8th November 2019, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Still waiting for your answer to my question, Sol:

I'm asking you in what way does this water generation prove your general theory. And while you're at it, why and how does it make the "mostly icy comet" theory incorrect?

Still waiting for your answer, Sol.

Sol88 · 8th November 2019, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

And more lies. Currents were expected to be in comet tails, long before your cult was invented. We even flew through the tail of 21P/G-Z in 1985! It seems that this is news to you;

The Giacobini‐Zinner magnetotail: Tail configuration and current sheet
McComas, D. J. et al. (1987)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....A092iA02p01139

No, that’s why our model has always included them.

If the currents close around the nucleus, where does the other end close?

Ulysses...

No answers yet?

Massive electric currents and electric fields doing work on a mostly rocky nucleus, as I’ve said all along.

Sol88 · 8th November 2019, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Still waiting for your answer, Sol.

Ice NOT needed!

Same process happens on the moon.

Quote:

On 24 September 2009 it was reported that the NASA's Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) spectrometer onboard India's ISRO Chandrayaan-1 probe had detected absorption features near 2.8–3.0 μm (0.00011–0.00012 in) on the surface of the Moon. For silicate bodies, such features are typically attributed to hydroxyl- and/or water-bearing materials.[9] In August 2018, NASA confirmed that M3 showed water ice is present on the surface at the Moon poles.[10][11]

Water may have been delivered to the Moon over geological timescales by the regular bombardment of water-bearing comets, asteroids and meteoroids [12] or continuously produced in situ by the hydrogen ions (protons) of the solar wind impacting oxygen-bearing minerals.[13]

You seem pretty smart, belz... I’m sure you can do the math.

Jonesdave116, no solar wind need to reach the surface of a comet. More than enough hydrogen at/on/in a comet along with shed loads of oxygen.

jonesdave116 · 8th November 2019, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Old news dude, wrong model again.

From the paper you linked to

MHD, lol.

Sorry? Still got no science, huh? Remind me - what are your qualifications? In anything to do with science? That would be a big fat zero, wouldn't it (rhetorical)? The point is, that the current was expected to be there. We knew about it long before we had visited a comet. We saw it in 1985. We do not need a bunch of scientifically illiterate Velikovskians to explain plasma physics to us, when said loons cannot scrape together a single plasma physicist.

jonesdave116 · 8th November 2019, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ice NOT needed!

Same process happens on the moon.

You seem pretty smart, belz... I’m sure you can do the math.

Jonesdave116, no solar wind need to reach the surface of a comet. More than enough hydrogen at/on/in a comet along with shed loads of oxygen.

Wrong. Lol. Let's see the reactions, the reaction cross-sections, and the amount of water (not) produced by this non-method. Why is it not happening at asteroids? Get on with it. No science. No mechanisms. No evidence. Just word salad and gibberish.

jonesdave116 · 8th November 2019, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Massive electric currents and electric fields doing work on a mostly rocky nucleus, as ~~I’ve~~ a scientifically illiterate Velikovskian has said all along

FTFY.

Lol. No science. No mechanisms. Getting boring. Learn some science, and get back to us.

jonesdave116 · 8th November 2019, 06:11 AM

Quote:

....doing work.....

Dear me. What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Perhaps it makes sense to the scientifically challenged, but nobody else.

Belz... · 8th November 2019, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

You seem pretty smart, belz... I’m sure you can do the math.

Don't tell me to do your work for you.

You have NOT answered my question. In what way does any of this SUPPORT your claim? I'm not asking you in what way it doesn't support a different claim.

steenkh · 8th November 2019, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ice NOT needed!

Same process happens on the moon.

You seem pretty smart, belz... I’m sure you can do the math.

Can you? I can't, but I can see that according to your "theory", the Moon should have a tail like comets do. Why doesn't it, and why don't the asteroids going closer to the Sun than many comets do, not have a tail too?

It seems to me that even if you could do the math, you would find that the water production is way too low.

JeanTate · 8th November 2019, 07:56 AM

Thanks RC.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.

Sol88's usual insanity to derail from Sol88's insane religious dogma that comets are actual rock (no ices or a demented fantasy of "little ices") blasted from rocky planets by electric discharges between planets including recent times (witnessed by us!) and that these rocks discharge in a massive solar electric field. This insanely tears the rock apart and puts gas and dust into the coma and forms their insanity of jets as electrical discharges

!

Sol88's insane lie that JeanTate only got the rock part of the electric comet insanity right.

My "[...correct]" comments added from the publicly available electric comet insanity that we have been discussing for 10 years now.

The electric comet insanity is comet origins are the surfaces of unnamed rocky planets which have to be Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars.

The electric comet insanity is that Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars whizz around the Solar System blasting each other with giant lighting bolts. But Earth violates the Thunderbolts cult insanity by not obeying their demented laws of physics and remaining in roughly same orbit for billions of years

!

The electric comet insanity is that some of these giant lighting bolts were witnessed and recorded by us in myths.

The electric comet insanity is that comets are solid rock with either no ices or "little ices" depending on the day and which demented prophet we ask.

The electric comet insanity is "comets exhibit cometary behavior due to the passage through the intense electric field which is centered on the Sun" via "high static charge" caused by "highly elliptical orbits". It is that electric field that tears solid rock apart into the tiny dust grains and even gases that make up comet coma and tails.

The electric comet insanity is that EDM is the mechanism that sculpts the solid rock surface of comet nuclei to form the dust grains and even gases as above.

The electric comet insanity from Dr. Franklin Anariba is more than just "water observed on comets is due to electrochemistry". The cult has water being produced on comet surfaces by electrical discharges. Anariba's delusions are mostly about comet coma and their composition. He takes the cult insanity of comets being solid, charged rock and spins his own fairy stories about comet. Dr. Franklin Anariba's EU 2013 talk makes it very clear that Anariba has fallen for the demented cult's electric comet insanity. Giving a talk at a conference of deluded cranks suggests that Anariba is a deluded crank.

An updated version of the Electric Comet Theory, or rather, key components of an electric comet model:

- comets' origins are the solid surfaces of Earth, Mercury, Venus, and Mars (but not the Moon?)
- they are created by giant lighting bolts
- such as are common when Venus comes within ~tens of thousands of kms of the Earth, or Earth with Mars, or Venus with Mercury, or ...
- many are young, say a few thousand years old
- comets are solid rock
- comets exhibit cometary behavior due to the passage through the intense electric field which is centered on the Sun
- AND their high static charge
- AND their highly elliptical orbits
- comet tails and jets are caused by EDM
- water observed on comets is due to electrochemistry, and recombination of OH^- with H⁺ from the solar wind

Did I miss anything important? Still got some things only partially correct?

JeanTate · 8th November 2019, 08:04 AM

Some questions for Sol88, on the electric comet model:

1) From which planet was the comet Tempel 1 ripped?
2) What was the other planet nearby at the time (the source of the giant lightning bolt)?
3) When did this happen?
4) What is the mass of the fulgarites left at the site of great ripping out?
5) When did Tempel 1 arrive in its present orbit?
6) How much mass has Tempel 1 lost, due to EDM, since it was created?
7) What is the electric field around Tempel 1, due to its position relative to the Sun?

Lukraak_Sisser · 8th November 2019, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

You said no mechanism.

Massive electric currents! And you deny them.

These would be the massive electric currents that create no magnetic fields and accelerate positive and negative charges in the same direction?
The massive electric currents that avoid rather than seek conductive materials?

The electric currents that behave in the exact opposite way of electricity on earth without any model, mathematics or even explanation?

Those currents?

jonesdave116 · 8th November 2019, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by steenkh

Can you? I can't, but I can see that according to your "theory", the Moon should have a tail like comets do. Why doesn't it, and why don't the asteroids going closer to the Sun than many comets do, not have a tail too?

It seems to me that even if you could do the math, you would find that the water production is way too low.

The maths has already been done, by a number of people in a number of places. I've done it twice on here! Here is the first effort from 4 and a half years ago;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=536

Now, that was for August 2014, or thereabouts, which was one year prior to perihelion, when the outgassing rate was ~ 1 l/s. Now, the solar wind density will increase at perihelion, compared to ~ 3 AU, maybe by a factor of 10. However, the outgassing rate has increased by 2-3 OOM by then.
So, as I pointed out back in my youth, we are left with a deficit of ~ 9-10 OOM at perihelion. The amount of water produced by this mechanism would be insufficient to make a postage stamp stick to an envelope! That is why Sol won't do the maths. Back in August '14, it could get you ~ 0.1 mm³ of water! Like I say, nowhere near enough for a stamp!

Other problems for this impossible mechanism are;

The D/H ratio of the water is not even close to the solar wind value. Nor is it Eartlh-like. Nor Mars-like.

The solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus for ~ 8 months around perihelion. However, water (among other volatiles) is seen where the solar wind isn't. Heading outward from the comet. So, where is the H coming from?

Sol will prattle on about hydrocarbons (also seen at asteroids) and hydrated minerals (also seen at asteroids). However, there is no way of releasing the necessary elements without heating. And temperatures at the comet are nowhere near high enough for that, as measured. In addition, under those circumstances, one should see the constituent parts (H, O, OH) close to the nucleus before they impossibly create water. We don't.

I could go on, but it is obvious that whatever Sol believes in has nothing to do with science.

Sol88 · 8th November 2019, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Wrong. Lol. Let's see the reactions, the reaction cross-sections, and the amount of water (not) produced by this non-method. Why is it not happening at asteroids? Get on with it. No science. No mechanisms. No evidence. Just word salad and gibberish.

The t does happen at asteroids champ.

Build yourself a very sturdy bridge a get the &@$# over it. Even Whipple had field aligned currents flowing up and down the tail.

But they don’t do anything, only the insolation does.

The nucleus itself is charged with respect to the plasma it is currently passing thru...

We see this also at asteroids, Ceres, Bennu and the moon.

No mechanism, what a goose.

Ideal MHD, what a over simplistic model to keep,the mathamagics simple.

Deca thru that out the window.

Sol88 · 8th November 2019, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by steenkh

Can you? I can't, but I can see that according to your "theory", the Moon should have a tail like comets do. Why doesn't it, and why don't the asteroids going closer to the Sun than many comets do, not have a tail too?

It seems to me that even if you could do the math, you would find that the water production is way too low.

No your model has way over estimated the total water production.

Pissy little dribble just like at Ceres, Bennu and the moon.

Sol88 · 8th November 2019, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

The maths has already been done, by a number of people in a number of places. I've done it twice on here! Here is the first effort from 4 and a half years ago;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=536

Now, that was for August 2014, or thereabouts, which was one year prior to perihelion, when the outgassing rate was ~ 1 l/s. Now, the solar wind density will increase at perihelion, compared to ~ 3 AU, maybe by a factor of 10. However, the outgassing rate has increased by 2-3 OOM by then.
So, as I pointed out back in my youth, we are left with a deficit of ~ 9-10 OOM at perihelion. The amount of water produced by this mechanism would be insufficient to make a postage stamp stick to an envelope! That is why Sol won't do the maths. Back in August '14, it could get you ~ 0.1 mm³ of water! Like I say, nowhere near enough for a stamp!

Other problems for this impossible mechanism are;

The D/H ratio of the water is not even close to the solar wind value. Nor is it Eartlh-like. Nor Mars-like.

The solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus for ~ 8 months around perihelion. However, water (among other volatiles) is seen where the solar wind isn't. Heading outward from the comet. So, where is the H coming from?

Sol will prattle on about hydrocarbons (also seen at asteroids) and hydrated minerals (also seen at asteroids). However, there is no way of releasing the necessary elements without heating. And temperatures at the comet are nowhere near high enough for that, as measured. In addition, under those circumstances, one should see the constituent parts (H, O, OH) close to the nucleus before they impossibly create water. We don't.

I could go on, but it is obvious that whatever Sol believes in has nothing to do with science.

Quote:

For example, oxygen atoms can combine with hydrogen atoms on cold dust grains to form water, or a free oxygen split from O2 by ultraviolet radiation can recombine with an O2 molecule to form ozone (O3).

Quote:

“We weren’t really expecting to detect O2 at the comet – and in such high abundance – because it is so chemically reactive, so it was quite a surprise,” says Kathrin Altwegg of the University of Bern, and principal investigator of the Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis instrument, ROSINA.

Quote:

The amount of molecular oxygen detected showed a strong relationship to the amount of water measured at any given time, suggesting that their origin on the nucleus and release mechanism are linked. By contrast, the amount of O2 seen was poorly correlated with carbon monoxide and molecular nitrogen, even though they have a similar volatility to O2. In addition, no ozone was detected.

First detection of molecular oxygen at a comet

Jonesdave116, blah blah stop flapping ya gums.

Sol88 · 8th November 2019, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

These would be the massive electric currents that create no magnetic fields and accelerate positive and negative charges in the same direction?
The massive electric currents that avoid rather than seek conductive materials?

The electric currents that behave in the exact opposite way of electricity on earth without any model, mathematics or even explanation?

Those currents?

Go read up, then get back to us.

You could start here...Birkeland currents

JeanTate · 8th November 2019, 03:53 PM

Let's discuss the Electric Comet Theory, shall we Sol88?

You know, the topic of this thread.

Parts of your post relevant to this thread.

Originally Posted by Sol88

<snip>

Some questions for Sol88, on the electric comet model:

1) From which planet was the comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko ripped?
2) What was the other planet nearby at the time (the source of the giant lightning bolt)?
3) When did this happen?
4) What is the mass of the fulgarites left at the site of great ripping out?
5) When did 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko arrive in its present orbit?
6) How much mass has 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko lost, due to EDM, since it was created?
7) What is the electric field around 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, due to its position relative to the Sun?
8) Why does 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko have the shape it does?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Sol88 · 8th November 2019, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by tusenfem

I have answered you plenty.
That you do not understand my answers is not my problem.

You’ve never answered how long the field aligned currents are. You alluded too them closing at the head , I asked where do they close at the tail end.

No answer.

Cheers

Lukraak_Sisser · 9th November 2019, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Go read up, then get back to us.

You could start here...Birkeland currents

That will contain the mathematics that explain how you can have an electrical current that does not create a magnetic field?
Or how you can have an electric current without a power source?
Or how those currents can move positive and negative charges in the same direction in the same electric field?

Why is that not used in commercial equipment then? Because that would revolutionize every single piece of electrical equipment in the world.

tusenfem · 9th November 2019, 02:25 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Massive electric currents! And you deny them.

you still have not defined what you (and your EC friends) mean with "massive" electric currents, and how they show up in the data.
(not that I expect any sensible answer)

Sol88 · 9th November 2019, 03:58 AM

Well, lots of oppositely directed magnetic fields it seems.

According to you we have electric currents.

Is this correct in my understanding?

Sol88 · 9th November 2019, 04:31 AM

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

That will contain the mathematics that explain how you can have an electrical current that does not create a magnetic field?
Or how you can have an electric current without a power source?
Or how those currents can move positive and negative charges in the same direction in the same electric field?

Why is that not used in commercial equipment then? Because that would revolutionize every single piece of electrical equipment in the world.

Birkeland currents, amazing ay.

Don Scott, is on the money.

tusenfem · 9th November 2019, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Well, lots of oppositely directed magnetic fields it seems.

According to you we have electric currents.

Is this correct in my understanding?

As usual not an answer, just a weird claim that is supposed to mean something.

Sol88 · 9th November 2019, 05:02 AM

You’ve described the cross tail currents. I can understand.

You stayed the currents close at the head of the comet.

Do you know how far down the tail it closes?

jonesdave116 · 9th November 2019, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

You’ve described the cross tail currents. I can understand.

You stayed the currents close at the head of the comet.

Do you know how far down the tail it closes?

Of what relevance is any of this to the EC woo? We've known about these currents for decades. Why are they not happening at asteroids? Hmmm? Answer the questions. Less word salad, more science.

jonesdave116 · 9th November 2019, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Birkeland currents, amazing ay.

Don Scott, is on the money.

Don Scott is a complete clown. With little to no understanding of plasma physics nor astrophysics. Go find a real scientist, with some knowledge of those subjects, and get back to us when you find one.

JeanTate · 9th November 2019, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Birkeland currents, amazing ay.

Don Scott, is on the money.

It was a Birkeland current that zapped Earth (or Mars? or Mercury? or Venus?) and created Tempel 1?

When did that happen, Sol88?

Does Scott include calculations showing how the Birkeland current that created Tempel 1 was powered?

Lukraak_Sisser · 9th November 2019, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Birkeland currents, amazing ay.

Don Scott, is on the money.

Except he seems to be unable to actually make money with science that could revolutionize everything.

So... maybe he is completely wrong?
Everything else you've posted so far has been.

jonesdave116 · 9th November 2019, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Except he seems to be unable to actually make money with science that could revolutionize everything.

So... maybe he is completely wrong?
Everything else you've posted so far has been.

Indeed. Scott's grasp of physics of any sort is negligible. Back in the day, when ~ 2/3rds of the expected solar neutrino detections were missing, he still had to account for the ~ 1/3rd that were being detected. So, the genius decides that fusion is occurring in a double layer in the chromosphere! And therefore paying scant regard to the inhabitants of this planet, by bathing them in a monstrous flux of gamma rays!

Sol88 · 9th November 2019, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Except he seems to be unable to actually make money with science that could revolutionize everything.

So... maybe he is completely wrong?
Everything else you've posted so far has been.

Except SAFIRE have.

Tick that one off.

Sol88 · 9th November 2019, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Indeed. Scott's grasp of physics of any sort is negligible. Back in the day, when ~ 2/3rds of the expected solar neutrino detections were missing, he still had to account for the ~ 1/3rd that were being detected. So, the genius decides that fusion is occurring in a double layer in the chromosphere! And therefore paying scant regard to the inhabitants of this planet, by bathing them in a monstrous flux of gamma rays!

See post above...

Double layers everywhere.

JeanTate · 9th November 2019, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Except SAFIRE have.

Tick that one off.

Right.

Except that the giant inter-galactic current seems to have gone AWOL ... maybe it’s hiding under Scott’s bed?

Sol88 · 9th November 2019, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by JeanTate

It was a Birkeland current that zapped Earth (or Mars? or Mercury? or Venus?) and created Tempel 1?

When did that happen, Sol88?

Does Scott include calculations showing how the Birkeland current that created Tempel 1 was powered?

So ignorant.

See Io

That’s the giant lightning bolt that should be envisioned.

But if you want proper fair dinkum giant lightning see Earth electrical curcuit.

Get back to me when you understand... see you in a couple years....

Mmmm...jets...mmmmm....cometary jets....mmmm....cometary ionosphere....Electric breakdown....perihelion jet...

Sol88 · 9th November 2019, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Right.

Except that the giant inter-galactic current seems to have gone AWOL ... maybe it’s hiding under Scott’s bed?

You are thinking small scale. Go big or go home champ.

Think comet tails for context.

JeanTate · 9th November 2019, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

So ignorant.

See Io

That’s the giant lightning bolt that should be envisioned.

But if you want proper fair dinkum giant lightning see Earth electrical curcuit.

Get back to me when you understand... see you in a couple years....

Mmmm...jets...mmmmm....cometary jets....mmmm....cometary ionosphere....Electric breakdown....perihelion jet...

OK, got it.

You cannot answer even the simplest questions about the Electric Comet Theory, the topic of this thread.

How about the lightning bolt which created the Grand Canyon, a few thousand years ago ... what did it have to do with Io?

What comet did it create?

In which document does Scott describe, in quantitative detail, when Tempel 1 was created?

JeanTate · 9th November 2019, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

You are thinking small scale. Go big or go home champ.

Think comet tails for context.

OK, got it.

There is no giant inter-galactic current in SAFIRE, so it has nothing to do with the actual, real Sun.

Belz... · 9th November 2019, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Still waiting for your answer to my question, Sol:

I'm asking you in what way does this water generation prove your general theory. And while you're at it, why and how does it make the "mostly icy comet" theory incorrect?

Still waiting for your answer, Sol.

8th November 2019, 03:23 AM	#561
jonesdave116 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,036	Originally Posted by Sol88 So you deny electric current flowing down the tail of comets? No wonder you struggle with the electric comet. So funny. Still, there they are. Don’t believe me, ask tusenfem. I did, no answer either. Seems everyone here a little scared of admitting this mainstream fact. And more lies. Currents were expected to be in comet tails, long before your cult was invented. We even flew through the tail of 21P/G-Z in 1985! It seems that this is news to you; The Giacobini‐Zinner magnetotail: Tail configuration and current sheet McComas, D. J. et al. (1987) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....A092iA02p01139
	__________________ “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

8th November 2019, 05:09 AM	#562
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	Old news dude, wrong model again. From the paper you linked to Quote: MHD continuity, momentum, and energy equations are combined with the plasma and field observations to determine unmeasured plasma properties at ICE and upstream at the average point along each streamline where the cometary ions are picked up. MHD, lol.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	__________________ “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

8th November 2019, 05:36 AM	#563
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 92,199	Originally Posted by Belz... Still waiting for your answer to my question, Sol: I'm asking you in what way does this water generation prove your general theory. And while you're at it, why and how does it make the "mostly icy comet" theory incorrect? Still waiting for your answer, Sol.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

8th November 2019, 05:36 AM	#564
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	Originally Posted by jonesdave116 And more lies. Currents were expected to be in comet tails, long before your cult was invented. We even flew through the tail of 21P/G-Z in 1985! It seems that this is news to you; The Giacobini‐Zinner magnetotail: Tail configuration and current sheet McComas, D. J. et al. (1987) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....A092iA02p01139 No, that’s why our model has always included them. If the currents close around the nucleus, where does the other end close? Ulysses... No answers yet? Massive electric currents and electric fields doing work on a mostly rocky nucleus, as I’ve said all along.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	__________________ “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

8th November 2019, 05:42 AM	#565
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	Originally Posted by Belz... Still waiting for your answer, Sol. Ice NOT needed! Same process happens on the moon. Quote: On 24 September 2009 it was reported that the NASA's Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) spectrometer onboard India's ISRO Chandrayaan-1 probe had detected absorption features near 2.8–3.0 μm (0.00011–0.00012 in) on the surface of the Moon. For silicate bodies, such features are typically attributed to hydroxyl- and/or water-bearing materials.[9] In August 2018, NASA confirmed that M3 showed water ice is present on the surface at the Moon poles.[10][11] Water may have been delivered to the Moon over geological timescales by the regular bombardment of water-bearing comets, asteroids and meteoroids [12] or continuously produced in situ by the hydrogen ions (protons) of the solar wind impacting oxygen-bearing minerals.[13] You seem pretty smart, belz... I’m sure you can do the math. Jonesdave116, no solar wind need to reach the surface of a comet. More than enough hydrogen at/on/in a comet along with shed loads of oxygen.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	__________________ “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

8th November 2019, 05:50 AM	#566
jonesdave116 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,036	Originally Posted by Sol88 Old news dude, wrong model again. From the paper you linked to MHD, lol. Sorry? Still got no science, huh? Remind me - what are your qualifications? In anything to do with science? That would be a big fat zero, wouldn't it (rhetorical)? The point is, that the current was expected to be there. We knew about it long before we had visited a comet. We saw it in 1985. We do not need a bunch of scientifically illiterate Velikovskians to explain plasma physics to us, when said loons cannot scrape together a single plasma physicist.
	__________________ “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

8th November 2019, 05:53 AM	#567
jonesdave116 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,036	Originally Posted by Sol88 Ice NOT needed! Same process happens on the moon. You seem pretty smart, belz... I’m sure you can do the math. Jonesdave116, no solar wind need to reach the surface of a comet. More than enough hydrogen at/on/in a comet along with shed loads of oxygen. Wrong. Lol. Let's see the reactions, the reaction cross-sections, and the amount of water (not) produced by this non-method. Why is it not happening at asteroids? Get on with it. No science. No mechanisms. No evidence. Just word salad and gibberish.
	__________________ “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

8th November 2019, 06:08 AM	#568
jonesdave116 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,036	Originally Posted by Sol88 Massive electric currents and electric fields doing work on a mostly rocky nucleus, as ~~I’ve~~ a scientifically illiterate Velikovskian has said all along FTFY. Lol. No science. No mechanisms. Getting boring. Learn some science, and get back to us.
	__________________ “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

8th November 2019, 06:11 AM	#569
jonesdave116 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,036	Quote: ....doing work..... Dear me. What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Perhaps it makes sense to the scientifically challenged, but nobody else.
	__________________ “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

8th November 2019, 06:42 AM	#570
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 92,199	Originally Posted by Sol88 You seem pretty smart, belz... I’m sure you can do the math. Don't tell me to do your work for you. You have NOT answered my question. In what way does any of this SUPPORT your claim? I'm not asking you in what way it doesn't support a different claim.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

8th November 2019, 07:38 AM	#571
steenkh Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 6,188	Originally Posted by Sol88 Ice NOT needed! Same process happens on the moon. You seem pretty smart, belz... I’m sure you can do the math. Can you? I can't, but I can see that according to your "theory", the Moon should have a tail like comets do. Why doesn't it, and why don't the asteroids going closer to the Sun than many comets do, not have a tail too? It seems to me that even if you could do the math, you would find that the water production is way too low.
	__________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!

8th November 2019, 07:56 AM	#572
JeanTate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,001	Thanks RC. Originally Posted by Reality Check The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma. Sol88's usual insanity to derail from Sol88's insane religious dogma that comets are actual rock (no ices or a demented fantasy of "little ices") blasted from rocky planets by electric discharges between planets including recent times (witnessed by us!) and that these rocks discharge in a massive solar electric field. This insanely tears the rock apart and puts gas and dust into the coma and forms their insanity of jets as electrical discharges ! Sol88's insane lie that JeanTate only got the rock part of the electric comet insanity right. My "[...correct]" comments added from the publicly available electric comet insanity that we have been discussing for 10 years now. The electric comet insanity is comet origins are the surfaces of unnamed rocky planets which have to be Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. The electric comet insanity is that Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars whizz around the Solar System blasting each other with giant lighting bolts. But Earth violates the Thunderbolts cult insanity by not obeying their demented laws of physics and remaining in roughly same orbit for billions of years ! The electric comet insanity is that some of these giant lighting bolts were witnessed and recorded by us in myths. The electric comet insanity is that comets are solid rock with either no ices or "little ices" depending on the day and which demented prophet we ask. The electric comet insanity is "comets exhibit cometary behavior due to the passage through the intense electric field which is centered on the Sun" via "high static charge" caused by "highly elliptical orbits". It is that electric field that tears solid rock apart into the tiny dust grains and even gases that make up comet coma and tails. The electric comet insanity is that EDM is the mechanism that sculpts the solid rock surface of comet nuclei to form the dust grains and even gases as above. The electric comet insanity from Dr. Franklin Anariba is more than just "water observed on comets is due to electrochemistry". The cult has water being produced on comet surfaces by electrical discharges. Anariba's delusions are mostly about comet coma and their composition. He takes the cult insanity of comets being solid, charged rock and spins his own fairy stories about comet. Dr. Franklin Anariba's EU 2013 talk makes it very clear that Anariba has fallen for the demented cult's electric comet insanity. Giving a talk at a conference of deluded cranks suggests that Anariba is a deluded crank. An updated version of the Electric Comet Theory, or rather, key components of an electric comet model: - comets' origins are the solid surfaces of Earth, Mercury, Venus, and Mars (but not the Moon?) - they are created by giant lighting bolts - such as are common when Venus comes within ~tens of thousands of kms of the Earth, or Earth with Mars, or Venus with Mercury, or ... - many are young, say a few thousand years old - comets are solid rock - comets exhibit cometary behavior due to the passage through the intense electric field which is centered on the Sun - AND their high static charge - AND their highly elliptical orbits - comet tails and jets are caused by EDM - water observed on comets is due to electrochemistry, and recombination of OH^- with H⁺ from the solar wind Did I miss anything important? Still got some things only partially correct?
JeanTate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,001

8th November 2019, 08:04 AM	#573
JeanTate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,001	Some questions for Sol88, on the electric comet model: 1) From which planet was the comet Tempel 1 ripped? 2) What was the other planet nearby at the time (the source of the giant lightning bolt)? 3) When did this happen? 4) What is the mass of the fulgarites left at the site of great ripping out? 5) When did Tempel 1 arrive in its present orbit? 6) How much mass has Tempel 1 lost, due to EDM, since it was created? 7) What is the electric field around Tempel 1, due to its position relative to the Sun?
JeanTate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,001

8th November 2019, 09:39 AM	#574
Lukraak_Sisser Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 4,000	Originally Posted by Sol88 You said no mechanism. Massive electric currents! And you deny them. These would be the massive electric currents that create no magnetic fields and accelerate positive and negative charges in the same direction? The massive electric currents that avoid rather than seek conductive materials? The electric currents that behave in the exact opposite way of electricity on earth without any model, mathematics or even explanation? Those currents?

8th November 2019, 09:52 AM	#575
jonesdave116 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,036	Originally Posted by steenkh Can you? I can't, but I can see that according to your "theory", the Moon should have a tail like comets do. Why doesn't it, and why don't the asteroids going closer to the Sun than many comets do, not have a tail too? It seems to me that even if you could do the math, you would find that the water production is way too low. The maths has already been done, by a number of people in a number of places. I've done it twice on here! Here is the first effort from 4 and a half years ago; http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=536 Now, that was for August 2014, or thereabouts, which was one year prior to perihelion, when the outgassing rate was ~ 1 l/s. Now, the solar wind density will increase at perihelion, compared to ~ 3 AU, maybe by a factor of 10. However, the outgassing rate has increased by 2-3 OOM by then. So, as I pointed out back in my youth, we are left with a deficit of ~ 9-10 OOM at perihelion. The amount of water produced by this mechanism would be insufficient to make a postage stamp stick to an envelope! That is why Sol won't do the maths. Back in August '14, it could get you ~ 0.1 mm³ of water! Like I say, nowhere near enough for a stamp! Other problems for this impossible mechanism are; The D/H ratio of the water is not even close to the solar wind value. Nor is it Eartlh-like. Nor Mars-like. The solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus for ~ 8 months around perihelion. However, water (among other volatiles) is seen where the solar wind isn't. Heading outward from the comet. So, where is the H coming from? Sol will prattle on about hydrocarbons (also seen at asteroids) and hydrated minerals (also seen at asteroids). However, there is no way of releasing the necessary elements without heating. And temperatures at the comet are nowhere near high enough for that, as measured. In addition, under those circumstances, one should see the constituent parts (H, O, OH) close to the nucleus before they impossibly create water. We don't. I could go on, but it is obvious that whatever Sol believes in has nothing to do with science.
	__________________ “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

8th November 2019, 02:33 PM	#576
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	Originally Posted by jonesdave116 Wrong. Lol. Let's see the reactions, the reaction cross-sections, and the amount of water (not) produced by this non-method. Why is it not happening at asteroids? Get on with it. No science. No mechanisms. No evidence. Just word salad and gibberish. The t does happen at asteroids champ. Build yourself a very sturdy bridge a get the &@$# over it. Even Whipple had field aligned currents flowing up and down the tail. But they don’t do anything, only the insolation does. The nucleus itself is charged with respect to the plasma it is currently passing thru... We see this also at asteroids, Ceres, Bennu and the moon. No mechanism, what a goose. Ideal MHD, what a over simplistic model to keep,the mathamagics simple. Deca thru that out the window.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	__________________ “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

8th November 2019, 02:36 PM	#577
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	Originally Posted by steenkh Can you? I can't, but I can see that according to your "theory", the Moon should have a tail like comets do. Why doesn't it, and why don't the asteroids going closer to the Sun than many comets do, not have a tail too? It seems to me that even if you could do the math, you would find that the water production is way too low. No your model has way over estimated the total water production. Pissy little dribble just like at Ceres, Bennu and the moon.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	__________________ “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

8th November 2019, 02:46 PM	#578
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	Originally Posted by jonesdave116 The maths has already been done, by a number of people in a number of places. I've done it twice on here! Here is the first effort from 4 and a half years ago; http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=536 Now, that was for August 2014, or thereabouts, which was one year prior to perihelion, when the outgassing rate was ~ 1 l/s. Now, the solar wind density will increase at perihelion, compared to ~ 3 AU, maybe by a factor of 10. However, the outgassing rate has increased by 2-3 OOM by then. So, as I pointed out back in my youth, we are left with a deficit of ~ 9-10 OOM at perihelion. The amount of water produced by this mechanism would be insufficient to make a postage stamp stick to an envelope! That is why Sol won't do the maths. Back in August '14, it could get you ~ 0.1 mm³ of water! Like I say, nowhere near enough for a stamp! Other problems for this impossible mechanism are; The D/H ratio of the water is not even close to the solar wind value. Nor is it Eartlh-like. Nor Mars-like. The solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus for ~ 8 months around perihelion. However, water (among other volatiles) is seen where the solar wind isn't. Heading outward from the comet. So, where is the H coming from? Sol will prattle on about hydrocarbons (also seen at asteroids) and hydrated minerals (also seen at asteroids). However, there is no way of releasing the necessary elements without heating. And temperatures at the comet are nowhere near high enough for that, as measured. In addition, under those circumstances, one should see the constituent parts (H, O, OH) close to the nucleus before they impossibly create water. We don't. I could go on, but it is obvious that whatever Sol believes in has nothing to do with science. Quote: For example, oxygen atoms can combine with hydrogen atoms on cold dust grains to form water, or a free oxygen split from O2 by ultraviolet radiation can recombine with an O2 molecule to form ozone (O3). Quote: “We weren’t really expecting to detect O2 at the comet – and in such high abundance – because it is so chemically reactive, so it was quite a surprise,” says Kathrin Altwegg of the University of Bern, and principal investigator of the Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis instrument, ROSINA. Quote: The amount of molecular oxygen detected showed a strong relationship to the amount of water measured at any given time, suggesting that their origin on the nucleus and release mechanism are linked. By contrast, the amount of O2 seen was poorly correlated with carbon monoxide and molecular nitrogen, even though they have a similar volatility to O2. In addition, no ozone was detected. First detection of molecular oxygen at a comet Jonesdave116, blah blah stop flapping ya gums.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	__________________ “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

8th November 2019, 02:49 PM	#579
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser These would be the massive electric currents that create no magnetic fields and accelerate positive and negative charges in the same direction? The massive electric currents that avoid rather than seek conductive materials? The electric currents that behave in the exact opposite way of electricity on earth without any model, mathematics or even explanation? Those currents? Go read up, then get back to us. You could start here...Birkeland currents
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	__________________ “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

8th November 2019, 03:53 PM	#580
JeanTate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,001	Let's discuss the Electric Comet Theory, shall we Sol88? You know, the topic of this thread. Parts of your post relevant to this thread. Originally Posted by Sol88 <snip> Some questions for Sol88, on the electric comet model: 1) From which planet was the comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko ripped? 2) What was the other planet nearby at the time (the source of the giant lightning bolt)? 3) When did this happen? 4) What is the mass of the fulgarites left at the site of great ripping out? 5) When did 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko arrive in its present orbit? 6) How much mass has 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko lost, due to EDM, since it was created? 7) What is the electric field around 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, due to its position relative to the Sun? 8) Why does 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko have the shape it does? Inquiring minds want to know!
JeanTate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,001

8th November 2019, 09:49 PM	#581
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	Originally Posted by tusenfem I have answered you plenty. That you do not understand my answers is not my problem. You’ve never answered how long the field aligned currents are. You alluded too them closing at the head , I asked where do they close at the tail end. No answer. Cheers
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	__________________ “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; 8th November 2019 at 10:17 PM.

9th November 2019, 12:06 AM	#582
Lukraak_Sisser Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 4,000	Originally Posted by Sol88 Go read up, then get back to us. You could start here...Birkeland currents That will contain the mathematics that explain how you can have an electrical current that does not create a magnetic field? Or how you can have an electric current without a power source? Or how those currents can move positive and negative charges in the same direction in the same electric field? Why is that not used in commercial equipment then? Because that would revolutionize every single piece of electrical equipment in the world.

9th November 2019, 02:25 AM	#583
tusenfem Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,933	Originally Posted by Sol88 Massive electric currents! And you deny them. you still have not defined what you (and your EC friends) mean with "massive" electric currents, and how they show up in the data. (not that I expect any sensible answer)
tusenfem Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,933	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

9th November 2019, 03:58 AM	#584
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	Well, lots of oppositely directed magnetic fields it seems. According to you we have electric currents. Is this correct in my understanding?
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	__________________ “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

9th November 2019, 04:31 AM	#585
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser That will contain the mathematics that explain how you can have an electrical current that does not create a magnetic field? Or how you can have an electric current without a power source? Or how those currents can move positive and negative charges in the same direction in the same electric field? Why is that not used in commercial equipment then? Because that would revolutionize every single piece of electrical equipment in the world. Birkeland currents, amazing ay. Don Scott, is on the money.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	__________________ “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

9th November 2019, 04:52 AM	#586
tusenfem Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,933	Originally Posted by Sol88 Well, lots of oppositely directed magnetic fields it seems. According to you we have electric currents. Is this correct in my understanding? As usual not an answer, just a weird claim that is supposed to mean something.
tusenfem Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,933	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

9th November 2019, 05:02 AM	#587
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	You’ve described the cross tail currents. I can understand. You stayed the currents close at the head of the comet. Do you know how far down the tail it closes?
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	__________________ “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; 9th November 2019 at 05:03 AM.

9th November 2019, 05:14 AM	#588
jonesdave116 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,036	Originally Posted by Sol88 You’ve described the cross tail currents. I can understand. You stayed the currents close at the head of the comet. Do you know how far down the tail it closes? Of what relevance is any of this to the EC woo? We've known about these currents for decades. Why are they not happening at asteroids? Hmmm? Answer the questions. Less word salad, more science.
	__________________ “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

9th November 2019, 05:16 AM	#589
jonesdave116 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,036	Originally Posted by Sol88 Birkeland currents, amazing ay. Don Scott, is on the money. Don Scott is a complete clown. With little to no understanding of plasma physics nor astrophysics. Go find a real scientist, with some knowledge of those subjects, and get back to us when you find one.
	__________________ “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

9th November 2019, 09:52 AM	#590
JeanTate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,001	Originally Posted by Sol88 Birkeland currents, amazing ay. Don Scott, is on the money. It was a Birkeland current that zapped Earth (or Mars? or Mercury? or Venus?) and created Tempel 1? When did that happen, Sol88? Does Scott include calculations showing how the Birkeland current that created Tempel 1 was powered?
JeanTate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,001

9th November 2019, 10:58 AM	#591
Lukraak_Sisser Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 4,000	Originally Posted by Sol88 Birkeland currents, amazing ay. Don Scott, is on the money. Except he seems to be unable to actually make money with science that could revolutionize everything. So... maybe he is completely wrong? Everything else you've posted so far has been.

9th November 2019, 04:11 PM	#592
jonesdave116 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 5,036	Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser Except he seems to be unable to actually make money with science that could revolutionize everything. So... maybe he is completely wrong? Everything else you've posted so far has been. Indeed. Scott's grasp of physics of any sort is negligible. Back in the day, when ~ 2/3rds of the expected solar neutrino detections were missing, he still had to account for the ~ 1/3rd that were being detected. So, the genius decides that fusion is occurring in a double layer in the chromosphere! And therefore paying scant regard to the inhabitants of this planet, by bathing them in a monstrous flux of gamma rays!
	__________________ “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

9th November 2019, 04:16 PM	#593
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser Except he seems to be unable to actually make money with science that could revolutionize everything. So... maybe he is completely wrong? Everything else you've posted so far has been. Except SAFIRE have. Tick that one off.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	__________________ “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; 9th November 2019 at 04:17 PM.

9th November 2019, 04:19 PM	#594
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	Originally Posted by jonesdave116 Indeed. Scott's grasp of physics of any sort is negligible. Back in the day, when ~ 2/3rds of the expected solar neutrino detections were missing, he still had to account for the ~ 1/3rd that were being detected. So, the genius decides that fusion is occurring in a double layer in the chromosphere! And therefore paying scant regard to the inhabitants of this planet, by bathing them in a monstrous flux of gamma rays! See post above... Double layers everywhere.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,467	__________________ “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

9th November 2019, 04:22 PM	#595
JeanTate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,001	Originally Posted by Sol88 Except SAFIRE have. Tick that one off. Right. Except that the giant inter-galactic current seems to have gone AWOL ... maybe it’s hiding under Scott’s bed?
JeanTate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,001