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 21st February 2020, 06:18 PM   #1361
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
From the increased outgassing from sublimation you mean? The Dirtysnowball model?

Or

I’ve said it’s the electric field doing the work, ie the electric comet.
In which case, I submit that you cannot read. No gas = no diamagnetic cavity. Chuck 2 kg of Ba gas at the solar wind, and lo and behold, diamagnetic cavity. And what work are you talking about? What electric field are you talking about? There is no electric field until the gas interacts with the solar wind. Unless you count the solar wind electric field.
Try to understand this, as it isn't difficult - gas from the comet mass loads the solar wind. Laws of physics say that the solar wind must slow, and be deflected. It is. End of story.
__________________
“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 22nd February 2020, 12:32 PM   #1362
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,036
Delete.
__________________
“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 22nd February 2020, 07:05 PM   #1363
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
In which case, I submit that you cannot read. No gas = no diamagnetic cavity. Chuck 2 kg of Ba gas at the solar wind, and lo and behold, diamagnetic cavity. And what work are you talking about? What electric field are you talking about? There is no electric field until the gas interacts with the solar wind. Unless you count the solar wind electric field.
Try to understand this, as it isn't difficult - gas from the comet mass loads the solar wind. Laws of physics say that the solar wind must slow, and be deflected. It is. End of story.
Sooooo, the Dirtysnowball model still...

Increased outgassing stops the solar wind from reaching the surface. End of story for any Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity type activity from ever occurring again till the outgassing subsides.

What interaction causes the electric field?
__________________
“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 23rd February 2020, 04:19 AM   #1364
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What interaction causes the electric field?
Really, after aaaaaaallllllll these pages ..........
after aaaaaaalllllllllllll the papers ..............
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2020, 04:30 AM   #1365
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Sooooo, the Dirtysnowball model still...

Increased outgassing stops the solar wind from reaching the surface. End of story for any Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity type activity from ever occurring again till the outgassing subsides.

What interaction causes the electric field?
I'm of the opinion that your state of befuddlement is terminal. What are you talking about with 'dirty snowball'? The premise has always been that ice sublimates and that that is the cause of the gas that eventually prevents the solar wind reaching the nucleus. Since it was first proposed, that has never changed. There are good reasons for that;

1)It matches theory.

2)It matches observation.

It doesn't matter what the ratio of dust:ice is, the fact remains that ice sublimates, and gas interacts with the solar wind. It would be hard pushed not to.
And you have already had it explained to you why there are electric fields in the coma. It isn't rocket science. Due to the plasma physicy stuff going on between the outgassed ions and electrons, and those from the solar wind, a field or fields are induced to maintain quasi-neutrality. Even a dumb old planetary science grad like me can understand that. I fail to see where your confusion lies.
If you are talking about surface fields, at periods of low activity, this is well covered in the literature, is also not rocket science, and applies equally to asteroids. So, why aren't they lit up like comets? That question is quite obviously rhetorical, as you have never answered it, due to it killing your woo stone dead, right from the get-go.
__________________
“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 23rd February 2020, 04:50 AM   #1366
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Great, so long as you are using the Dirtysnowball model still.

So many conflicting and unanswered questions on the “diamagnetic” cavity.

The Convective Electric Field Influence on the Cold Plasma and Diamagnetic Cavity of Comet 67P

AFully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Cold electrons everywhere...
__________________
“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 23rd February 2020, 05:04 AM   #1367
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Great, so long as you are using the Dirtysnowball model still.

So many conflicting and unanswered questions on the “diamagnetic” cavity.

The Convective Electric Field Influence on the Cold Plasma and Diamagnetic Cavity of Comet 67P

AFully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Cold electrons everywhere...
What the hell are you on about now? What is your obsession with 'dirty snowball'? I have already pointed out to you, with links that even an idiot could understand, that the same process happens whether the gas comes from a comet nucleus or from an exploded canister of Ba gas. Which part of it do you not understand?
And cold electrons? Of course thay are bloody cold. They are cometary electrons. In a diamagnetic cavity. What do you think they should be doing? We've known this since Halley, and it is entirely to be expected.
Why do we keep having to educate you on things that have been known for decades?
__________________
“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 23rd February 2020, 01:38 PM   #1368
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Really, after aaaaaaallllllll these pages ..........
after aaaaaaalllllllllllll the papers ..............

Sorry, better put, what stop the solar wind from reaching the surface
?

Collisions with outgassing neutrals or the electric field as described by Deca?



Quote:
This region appears to be a potential barrier for solar wind electrons, leading to a reduction of Te,P (Figure 2(g)). This effect indicates that the ambipolar electric field is not spherically (or cylindrically) symmetric as is often assumed in theoretical considerations of the kinetic expansion of a cometary electron–ion plasma cloud (Nilsson et al. 2018).
Deca


Or


The diamagnetic cavity?
__________________
“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; 23rd February 2020 at 01:50 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
Old 23rd February 2020, 01:44 PM   #1369
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Wrong, once more de "dirty snowball" (because you love it so much)



And then, if you would actually READ Whipple [1950, Astrophys. J., 111, 375, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/19....375W/abstract, open access through ADS] you would find a 20 page paper filled with math.

You do know it is a mortal sin to lie, don't you?

Basically, you have no knowledge of basic history and development of space plasma physics.

No, I have a good grasp on the history of space plasma physics.

What was Whipple's?

The application of plasma physics would not have ended in the model used by mainstream still to this day. The Dirtysnowball.

All that’s really happed is....
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].
So comets are more rocky and less icy as envisioned by Whipple

Is this true tusenfem? Comets are more rock like than once envisioned?
__________________
“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; 23rd February 2020 at 01:55 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
Old 23rd February 2020, 02:00 PM   #1370
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Yes it is scientifically impossible. I have asked you once already. For avoidance of doubt, answer the following questions, or go away with this idiocy;
  1. What charge separation?
  2. What does charge separation have to do with impossible and unobserved EDM (lol) woo?
  3. How does it relate to the observation the the jets, that the idiot Thornhill thinks are electric discharges, are in fact just cold, neutral gas and dust. With ice sometimes thrown in?
  4. How does charge separation account for thousands of tonnes of ice blasted out of Tempel 1?
  5. How does charge separation account for the complete lack of rock at comets?
  6. How does it account for the measured density?
  7. How does it account for the gases observed?

That'll do for now. So, get on with it, and start explaining your impossible idiocy with some actual science.

You mean, no mechanism in the Dirtysnowball model?

In the real world...

EDM (lol)
Quote:
4 Conclusions
Our charge measurements confirmed the predictions of the patched charge model, showing that dust particles can be electrostatically transported or lofted on the surfaces of airless planetary bodies due to their large net negative charges. This result especially contradicts the generally expected positive charge polarity on dust particles exposed to UV radiation. These negative charges are orders of magnitude larger than the charges predicted by previous charging models or measured from previous experimental works. The initial charge state of regolith dust provided from this new charge measurement is critical for their dynamics studies in order to understand the surface evolution of airless planetary bodies.
The charge state of electrostatically transported dust on regolith surfaces


We see the same at active asteroids... strangely enough.
__________________
“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 23rd February 2020, 02:18 PM   #1371
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,930
Thumbs down The usual insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
The weekend continues almost 11 years of Sol88's demented dogma: The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Feb 2020).

This post: Sol88's usual demented questions.
The dirty snowball model is the mainstream ices and dust comet model.
Sol88's insanity about EDM, double layers, etc. on comets.

Next post: Sol88's usual insane lies about the electric comet being physically possible.
Comets have measured densities less than water, the Stardust mission returned dust that formed in space, jets cannot be his demented dogma of electrical discharges because they vanish in shadows, etc.

Next post: Sol88's usual insane lies about Sol88's demented dogma which has no dusty plasma as in Charged dust dynamics above the surface of a comet far from the Sun
Sol88's insane lies about Charged dust dynamics above the surface of a comet far from the Sun (quotes dust within 5 meters of the surface) and the diamagnetic cavity many kilometers from the comet nucleus.
Sol88's usual insane lies abut a paper about comets far from the Sun where the solar wind is not shielded by a coma.

Next post: Sol88's usual demented questions that Sol88 answered recently !
Sublimation of ices on comets starts inside the frost or snow line which is the definition of the snow line!
Sol88's total insanity that the dirty snowball model starts only inside the frost line when he has been citing dirty snowball model paper about comets far from the Sun (far enough that sublimation is negligible).
Utter "I postulate it never stops." insanity from Sol88. . Sol88 is spewing out his recent insanity that the solar wind can get thru a comet coma. The papers Sol88 has been citing on the interaction with the solar wind with comae say it does not.

Next post: Sol88's usual demented questions and Sol88 persists in insane lies about his demented dogma which has an imaginary, massive solar electric field, not the ones in a comet coma or electrostatic charging of the surface by the solar wind outside of the frost line.

Next post: Sol88's usual demented questions
Sol88 cites Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity which states how the surface is charged. Science that is nothing to do with Sol88's demented dogma.

Next post: Sol88's usual demented citation of dust and ices comet papers.
The Convective Electric Field Influence on the Cold Plasma and Diamagnetic Cavity of Comet 67P
A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

Next post: Sol88's usual demented questions.
Sol88's insanely lies that we have not explained that it is the coma as in the papers Sol88 has cited that stops the solar wind from reaching comet nuclei.

Next post: Utter insanity from Sol88 !
Sol88 lies why he was given the citation to Whipple's paper. It was not about any "history of space plasma physics". It was Sol88's utter inanity that there is no math about comets in the mainstream model. Totally insane because Sol88 has cited modern paper on comets with math ! Whipple's paper shows that the papers have contained math for 70 years at least. There would be earlier papers about comet density with math.
Sol88 lies about Whipple's paper which is on comets, not space plasma physics.
A comet model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke by Whipple, F. L.
, March 1950.
This is Whipple's observation that the measured accelerations of comets in their orbits can be accounted for by the sublimation of ices.

A sign that Sol88 has never read even the abstract of that paper: No insane ranting about the phrase "meteoric materials" !

Next post: Sol88's demented insanity that comets have regolith !
Cites The charge state of electrostatically transported dust on regolith surfaces
Doubly demented because he has cited papers on real electrostatically transported dust on comets. We (the other posters here) do not disagree with papers that calculate that comets far from the Sun will have electrostatically charged dust lifted to escape and transported across their surface.
Triply demented because Sol88 claims this electrostatically transport of dust on airless planetary bodies is EDM!

Sol88's usual lies about jonesdave116 post with an demented "You mean, no mechanism in the Dirtysnowball model?" question especially since Sol88 has decades to learn about the dirty snowball model!
jonesdave116 wrote: Yes it is scientifically impossible. I have asked you once already. For avoidance of doubt, answer the following questions, or go away with this idiocy; about Sol88's demented "charge separation", etc. delusions .

Last edited by Reality Check; 23rd February 2020 at 02:35 PM.
Reality Check is online now   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 23rd February 2020, 02:18 PM   #1372
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
<content not relevant to the EC snipped>
You posted this in the wrong thread, eh Sol88?
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 23rd February 2020, 02:20 PM   #1373
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
<content not relevant to the EC snipped>
You posted this in the wrong thread, eh Sol88?
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 23rd February 2020, 02:21 PM   #1374
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
<content not relevant to the EC snipped>
You posted this in the wrong thread, eh Sol88?
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 23rd February 2020, 05:58 PM   #1375
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You mean, no mechanism in the Dirtysnowball model?

In the real world...

EDM (lol) The charge state of electrostatically transported dust on regolith surfaces


We see the same at active asteroids... strangely enough.
Errrr, dumb, or what? We should see it at EVERY asteroid, correct? Why don't we? Ever going to answer this, woo boy? Of course you aren't. You'll continue trolling this forum, just like the idiot Solon. And every time somebody grows a pair, and calls you out for the idiots that you are, they'll get banned from here, or have their posts removed by the pussies that run this site. Sad.
__________________
“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; 23rd February 2020 at 06:09 PM.
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 23rd February 2020, 07:14 PM   #1376
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,930
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
We see the same at active asteroids... strangely enough.
Sol88 lies when he claims the cited paper states that we have seen electrostatically transported dust on active asteroids.
The charge state of electrostatically transported dust on regolith surfaces (PDF) has only the example of dust accumulating in craters on Eros which is not one of the few active asteroids.

The main mechanisms for activity on active asteroids are sublimation, impact disruption, and rotational destabilization. There are potential other mechanisms - thermal fracturing, radiation pressure sweeping, and electrostatic levitation. The latter is mentioned only once in Asteroid-Comet Continuum Objects in the Solar System.
Reality Check is online now   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 23rd February 2020, 10:08 PM   #1377
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Errrr, dumb, or what? We should see it at EVERY asteroid, correct? Why don't we? Ever going to answer this, woo boy? Of course you aren't. You'll continue trolling this forum, just like the idiot Solon. And every time somebody grows a pair, and calls you out for the idiots that you are, they'll get banned from here, or have their posts removed by the pussies that run this site. Sad.
List of minor planets and comets visited by spacecraft = 16

List of Active asteroids = 38

We can add 2 that are in both lists, along with Pluto as well! Looks statistically significant to this little black duck

So, go visit more asteroids with the correct instrumentation for the job!

Which answer were you after specifically? Now, imagine if we had RPC (Rosetta Plasma Consortium) instrumentation on board!

Welcome, sir, to the electric asteroid!

Just to be sure, comets are MOSTLY ICE and asteroids are MOSTLY ROCK? This is the dirtysnowball model still.



woo boy!

Quote:
have their posts removed by the pussies that run this site
Dude, you need a break.
__________________
“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; 23rd February 2020 at 10:21 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
Old 23rd February 2020, 10:26 PM   #1378
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Sol88 lies when he claims the cited paper states that we have seen electrostatically transported dust on active asteroids.
The charge state of electrostatically transported dust on regolith surfaces (PDF) has only the example of dust accumulating in craters on Eros which is not one of the few active asteroids.

The main mechanisms for activity on active asteroids are sublimation, impact disruption, and rotational destabilization. There are potential other mechanisms - thermal fracturing, radiation pressure sweeping, and electrostatic levitation. The latter is mentioned only once in Asteroid-Comet Continuum Objects in the Solar System.
How many times before it is the MAIN mechanism?
__________________
“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; 23rd February 2020 at 10:36 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
Old 23rd February 2020, 10:54 PM   #1379
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Sorry, better put, what stop the solar wind from reaching the surface
?

Collisions with outgassing neutrals or the electric field as described by Deca?
What does Jan Deca's paper have to do with the diamagnetic cavity?
Absolutely nothing, because Jan models the weakly outgassing comet for when there is no diamagnetic cavity.
Comparing oranges and eskimos again, are we?
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2020, 11:04 PM   #1380
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
No, I have a good grasp on the history of space plasma physics.
Allow me to disagee here.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
What was Whipple's?

The application of plasma physics would not have ended in the model used by mainstream still to this day. The Dirtysnowball.
And why exactly was the "Whipple model" developed?
And how does the electric comet idea solve this problem?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So comets are more rocky and less icy as envisioned by Whipple

Is this true tusenfem? Comets are more rock like than once envisioned?
The ratios probably have changed, since Whipple, yes. And that should hardly be a surprise, as Whipple created his very successful model (which was created for what purpose now?) before there were any missions visiting a comet, that would take another 25 years or so.

From Whipple [1950]

Quote:
Furthermore, I propose that these primitive gases constitute an important, if not a predominant, fraction of the mass of a "new" or undisintegrated comet.

<snip>

If the primitive ices constitute a large percentage of the total mass, the comet truly disintegrates with time. Its actual substance vaporizes; the surface gravity decreases; and, finally, all activity ceases as the last of its ice reservoir is exhausted. The observed sequence of phenomena in dying comets is entirely consistent with this picture. In the later stages, only a very small nucleus of the largest meteoric fragments remains (note the asteroid Hidalgo as a possible example).
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2020, 12:29 AM   #1381
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
^^^^

Quote:
Key Points:

The height to runout length(H/L)of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenkolandslides ranges between 0.50 and 0.97

67P landslide reveal a rocky-type mechanical behavior indicating that comets are made by consolidated materials

The H/L variability is an indicator of the different volatile content located in the top few meters of the cometary crust
Quote:
5. Conclusion

The detailed characterisation and analysis of landslides on 67P widens the dataset of the Solar System landslides considering meter-scale case studies that were not analysed before on other planetary bodies. By assuming the height to runout length as an approximation for the friction coefficient of landslide material, we find that on comet 67P, this ratio falls between 0.50 and 0.97.

Given that the 67P high friction coefficients are comparable, or even exceed, those found on Earth dry landslides (Legros, 2002), this implies a mechanically rocky-type behaviour for the cometary material. Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces.

Landslides on 67P reveal a clear rocky-type behaviour for cometary material that, once collapsed, assumes a rock avalanche mobilization associated to relatively high friction coefficients. This behaviour agrees with the refractory to ice ratio estimated from grains ejected from 67P(Fulle et al., 2019). In addition, the considerable variability of H/L values among the different landslides suggests that different volatile contents of the detached mass play a fundamental role on the gravitational process and final runout, hence being a general indicator for the subsurface cometary heterogeneities.
The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko


So.....
Quote:
(c) What are comets made of?
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.
Which leads onto
Quote:
(ii) upper porosity bound: if ice = 0, then Fnucleus = ∞ and dust (1-poro)-bulk = 0 in (11) and, not so unrealistically, the nucleus would be a highly porous stony agglomerate, essentially devoid of
volitiles.
but remember
Quote:
Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces.
So the dirtysnowball still?


Comets are rocky bodies and represent a continuum with Asteroids.
__________________
“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; 24th February 2020 at 01:11 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2020, 12:36 AM   #1382
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
What does Jan Deca's paper have to do with the diamagnetic cavity?
Absolutely nothing, because Jan models the weakly outgassing comet for when there is no diamagnetic cavity.
Comparing oranges and eskimos again, are we?

Absolutely nothing?

Reckon ya wrong there champ!

So, you are saying when "outgassing" is low all the various electric fields are in play and once "outgassing" reaches some threshold rate collisions stop the solar wind AND accelerate electrons?

What stops the solar wind from reaching the surface of the comet? the neutrals from "outgasssing" or the electric field, tusenfem?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 24th February 2020, 01:15 AM   #1383
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
From the above, seems one of my 'ol favorites is being called into question, the RSI experiment!

Are comets fluffy MOSTLY ROCK or CONSOLIDATED DUST?

or

Comets poses a negative charge slightly repelling Rosetta which is being interpretated as a highly porous nucleus.

Fun times ahead as the mainstream disentangle the data from the theory, the dirtysnowball...

Or the now, just a dirtball and consolidated at that, model!

Quote:
The 67P landslide analysis reveals a clear rocky-type behavior of cometary material, which is more similar to terrestrial material and totally different from what is observed on other Solar System icy bodies. These results show that 67P and likely comets in general are characterised by consolidated material, hence rejecting the idea that they are fluffy aggregates.
Highly porous and consolidated do not make good bed fellows.

Que whinging about only the crust being consolidated! but the rest is still the Dirtysnowball, just better hidden!
__________________
“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; 24th February 2020 at 01:23 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2020, 01:59 AM   #1384
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,932
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Reckon ya wrong there champ!
Who am I to argue with your genius?
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2020, 02:23 AM   #1385
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,187
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Comets are rocky bodies and represent a continuum with Asteroids.
But for some reason other end of the continuum - asteroids where there is no ice - are not active, although with EC, they should be outgassing along with the comets when the go near the Sun.

Explain that, champ!
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2020, 03:05 AM   #1386
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Who am I to argue with your genius?
Comets are rocky objects discharging in the solar wind.

Never changed the ELECTRIC COMET philosophy.

You should talk with Deca, might make some insights.


Also, care to answer the question of whether the solar wind is stop by collisions, increased ”outgassing” or an electric field as described by Deca?

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

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 24th February 2020, 03:07 AM   #1387
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
But for some reason other end of the continuum - asteroids where there is no ice - are not active, although with EC, they should be outgassing along with the comets when the go near the Sun.

Explain that, champ!
More are active than inactive so far. I’m Sure mainstream will see shed loads more...

Just care to look and ye shall find.

Did the instrumentation the spacecraft that have visited asteroids, they carried be able to register electric fields? Magnetic fields?

Ions? Electrons?

So how would they know if slapped you in the tush?
__________________
“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; 24th February 2020 at 03:11 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2020, 04:07 AM   #1388
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Sorry, no need to answer tusenfem

Quote:
caused by a sudden increase in solar wind dynamic pressure (Volwerk et al. 2016). For an extended time period around perihelion, Mandt et al. (2016) characterized a collisionopause boundary at comet 67P/CG. The location of this boundary is also affected by the nucleus outgassing rate and the solar wind dynamic pressure. This boundary, that was assumed to be outside of the diamagnetic cavity, was characterized by enhanced magnetic field pile-up, reduced electron densities, and accelerated water-group ions on the outside, and reduced magnetic field pile-up, enhanced electron densities, and lowenergy water-group ions on the inside (Mandt et al. 2016).
PLASMA ENVIRONMENT AROUND COMET 67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO AT PERIHELION: MODEL COMPARISON WITH ROSETTA DATA

Money is on this though...

Quote:
Our simulation results show that an increase of the electron pressure, introduced by a parametrized local electron heating process, leads to an ambipolar electric field that is strong enough to push out the cometary ions and create a magnetic field-free region.
Apossible mechanism for the formation of magnetic field dropouts in the coma of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
__________________
“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; 24th February 2020 at 04:21 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th February 2020, 04:22 AM   #1389
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
So, as usual, you don’t have to answer, tusenfem.
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
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 24th February 2020, 07:32 AM   #1390
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Posting in the wrong place again, Sol88?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
<content not relevant to the EC 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 24th February 2020, 07:33 AM   #1391
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Oh dear, yet another one Sol88?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
<content not relevant to the EC 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 24th February 2020, 07:40 AM   #1392
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Comets are rocky objects discharging in the solar wind.

Never changed the ELECTRIC COMET philosophy.

You should talk with Deca, might make some insights.


Also, care to answer the question of whether the solar wind is stop by collisions, increased ”outgassing” or an electric field as described by Deca?

Up for it, tusenfem?
Surprise, a post by Sol88 relevant to the EC!

Sadly, full of errors of omission ... you left out the giant intergalactic lightning bolt which ripped sandstone etc from bedrock to form the Grand Canyon, within the last ~50k years; the Sun's radial electric field; and much more.

Not sure if the Thunderdolts marketing funds, to pay shills, is available for such herasies; GodHead Thornhill will NOT be pleased.

But hey, independence is good, right? So when may we expect to see a draft paper by you, with quantitative details of your EC ideas?
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 24th February 2020, 07:43 AM   #1393
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Sigh.

It's quite tiresome to keep having to do this ... why oh why can't you stay on topic, Sol88?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
<content not relevant to the EC 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 24th February 2020, 01:18 PM   #1394
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Surprise, a post by Sol88 relevant to the EC!

Sadly, full of errors of omission ... you left out the giant intergalactic lightning bolt which ripped sandstone etc from bedrock to form the Grand Canyon, within the last ~50k years; the Sun's radial electric field; and much more.

Not sure if the Thunderdolts marketing funds, to pay shills, is available for such herasies; GodHead Thornhill will NOT be pleased.

But hey, independence is good, right? So when may we expect to see a draft paper by you, with quantitative details of your EC ideas?

No need to, mainstreams coming round...

So, you believe in the quaint bedtime story of comets are the leftovers from the formation of the solar system. Nice story with a happy ending. About as much evidence as giant lightning bolts ripping planets apart really.

Comets are rocky bodies discharging in the solar wind. If you’d like to get tangled up in maths go ahead.

Maths gave you a highly porous comet with no ice, it has also given you a consolidated comets... some with ice others mostly rock...

The Dirtysnowball.

Which they tell me is incorrect but have no other model, so default, for lack of any other model we still use less snowy more dirty balls.

Do you like dirty balls, jean tate?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

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

Last edited by Sol88; 24th February 2020 at 01:36 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
Old 24th February 2020, 01:47 PM   #1395
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Oh dear, yet another one Sol88?
Oh, deary me...

Quote:
4 Conclusions
Our charge measurements confirmed the predictions of the patched charge model, showing that dust particles can be electrostatically transported or lofted on the surfaces of airless planetary bodies due to their large net negative charges. This result especially contradicts the generally expected positive charge polarity on dust particles exposed to UV radiation. These negative charges are orders of magnitude larger than the charges predicted by previous charging models or measured from previous experimental works. The initial charge state of regolith dust provided from this new charge measurement is critical for their dynamics studies in order to understand the surface evolution of airless planetary bodies.
The charge state of electrostatically transported dust on regolith surfaces

So the charged dust leaves the surface of a comet as per the ELECTRIC COMET. Sublimation is a nice bedtime story.

Are you feeling sleepy yet, jean tate? I could read you another chapter from your book?
__________________
“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 24th February 2020, 01:49 PM   #1396
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Sigh, yet more trolling?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
No need to, mainstreams coming round...
Hmm ...

Rather like how my cat will speak French next Wednesday, eh?

Quote:
<not relevant to EC snipped>
All too common, sadly ...

PS I do not have a cat
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 24th February 2020, 01:52 PM   #1397
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Oh, deary me...

The charge state of electrostatically transported dust on regolith surfaces

So the charged dust leaves the surface of a comet as per the ELECTRIC COMET. Sublimation is a nice bedtime story.

Are you feeling sleepy yet, jean tate? I could read you another chapter from your book?
So how’s that EC paper of yours coming along, Sol88?

Don’t forget to include EDM, invisible pink fairy pee, ...
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 24th February 2020, 02:17 PM   #1398
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,467
Thought you had to be smart to write and submit a paper? Or was that your peers had to be smart? Or do they just need a good dose of common sense?

Papers that go against the mainstream are poo pooed.

For instance you may have seen this.
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].
And even A’Hearn got poo pooed for that one...
__________________
“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 24th February 2020, 02:54 PM   #1399
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Thought you had to be smart to write and submit a paper? Or was that your peers had to be smart? Or do they just need a good dose of common sense?
In my experience, you need to have a good understanding of the relevant theory and observations. Also an ability to write clearly and logically. But above all, a good head for numbers.

Quote:
Papers that go against the mainstream are poo pooed.

<snip>
That may be so. Or not.

However, in order to be "poo pooed", a paper must first be published, even in re-print form (e.g. in arXiv). And before that, the authors - you in this case - need to actually write something.

So, when may we expect a good draft of your EC paper?
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 24th February 2020, 03:33 PM   #1400
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Thought you had to be smart to write and submit a paper?
You do. Which is why you will see none of the EU crowd publishing papers. Except in predatory, pay-to-publish crank journals. And in IEEE, when Peratt was on the take from a Velikovskian foundation.
__________________
“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
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 09:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.