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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd August 2017, 03:24 PM   #41
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
159 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to July 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
  1. 17 July 2017 Sol88: Unthinking parroting again of an ignorant Franklin Anariba
  2. 18 July 2017 Sol88: A ignorant and deluded fantasy about "charged sheathed vortices"
  3. 18 July 2017 Sol88: Abysmal ignorance about plasma, Birkeland currents and 67P!
  4. 18 July 2017 Sol88: Links to a lying and deluded video from the deluded Thunderbolts cult.
  5. 18 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about Talbots prediction of a "comet flaring" being supported by no flaring!
  6. 18 July 2017 Sol88: Another attempt to derail form his delusion that comets are rocks.
  7. 18 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about relying on "cliffs collapsing' for jets.
  8. 20 July 2017 Sol88: Swallows the Thunderbolts magnetic reconnection "Kool-Aid" - what a surprise!
  9. 20 July 2017 Sol88: Fatally ignorant about magnetic reconnection which is not force free field aligned currents!
  10. 20 July 2017 Sol88: A lie about a Thunderbolts lie about Deep Impact.
  11. 27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks.
  12. 26 July 2017 Sol88: Repeats his delusion that scientific papers are about his delusion that comets are rocks.
  13. 26 July 2017 Sol88: Ignorance about what tusenfem wrote "no" to (as requested in that post!).
  14. 27 July 2017 Sol88: The persistent and irrelevant delusion that there are images of comets showing that they are rocks.
  15. 2 August 2017 Sol88: Confirms once again that he is arguing from a stance of abysmal ignorance about comets (for the last 8 years)!
General Thunderbolt cult stuff:
20 July 2017: A Thunderbolts follower with a ignorant "cosmic climate model" delusions.
21 July 2017: The mostly ignorant and deluded cranks speaking at the EU2017 conference.
24 July 2017: Thornhill shows again that he has gone off the deep end with a "gravity = EM" speech.
31 July 2017: All sorts of idiocy in the Thunderbolts dogma listed for EU2017 (Big Bang denial, black hole denial, delusion that stars are not powered by fusion, etc.)

Deafening silence emphasizing the complete ignorance of science behind the comets are rocks delusion:
11 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict abut the observation of cold and warm electrons at 67P?
6 July 2017 Sol88: What does a rotating charged body do (so far a display of complete ignorance of basic electromagnetism!)?
7 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict about the impact of Rosetta on 67P?

27 July 2017 Sol88: Did the Stardust mission sample the subsurface composition of comet Wild 2?
27 July 2017 Sol88: Where is the EU prediction of subsurface composition in the "Subsurface composition" paragraph or linked web page?
27 July 2017 Sol88: What does a deluded denial of the formation of the Solar System have to do with the EU subsurface composition of comets

Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd August 2017 at 03:32 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 03:27 PM   #42
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
New Comet: C/2017 O1 ASAS-SN Takes Earth by Surprise

So in the EU delusion, a comet that has a period of millions of years and thus last visited the inner solar system millions of years ago (before the existence of human beings) was blasted off the Earth some thousands of years ago as reported in human myths !
3 August 2017 Sol88: How did a comet that last visited Earth millions of years ago have its creation recorded in human mythology?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 03:46 PM   #43
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie about contradictions between comets of ices and dust and a paper on dust

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
and your blind to the contradictions???

Model it still fluffy dust covered solid ice??
3 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about contradictions between comets of ices and dust and a paper on dust activity.

We might consider not citing real science to Sol88 because that just evokes lies about the papers as in this example .
I wrote 27 July 2017 Sol88: The delusion that comets are rocks is not supported by the delusion that a paper is about comets being rocks. where I cited and quoted
What drives the dust activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko? by B. Gundlach, J. Blum, H. U. Keller, Y. V. Skorov (June 2015)
There are papers with 2 different models of dust activity on comets made of ices and dust. A crucial difference is that Gundlach et. al. hav a layer of weakly cohesive dust formed through sublimation while Skorov et. al. use a numerical model to calculate cohesion forces.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 02:21 AM   #44
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
If you would just actually read the Rosetta papers then you would know what the current mainstream model is. And no, it is not the long abandoned "dirty snowball", a term which for historical reasons keeps hanging around.

Several special issues of Science (31 July 2015, 23 January 2015), Astronomy & Astrophysics (vol 583, 2015), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (Vol 462, Issue Suppl_1, 2016) give enough reading material, and that is only the surface of what is being published.

The mainstream only ever had Whipples model!

and it's a bust, so what DO the mainstream have...?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 02:26 AM   #45
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
OK, let's have a look at what T & T have to say about the dust;....................er, nothing. Except the bit where they confuse the sunlight reflected from jets of such material, and claim that it's an electrical discharge. Oh dear.
Quote:
The evidence suggests that comets are highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun. As they rush toward the Sun, the voltage increases until at some point the comet nucleus begins to discharge. Electrons are stripped from a few points on the comet surface where the electric field is strongest. These “spark discharges” finely machine rocky material from the surface to form a “cathode jet” of negatively charged dust together with surface matter that has been torn apart to release ionized atoms and molecules, including oxygen.
LINK

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
Michael F. A’Hearn

and

Quote:
However, the gas-driven dust activity cannot explain the presence of particles smaller than 1mm in the coma
because the high tensile strength required to detach these particles from the surface cannot be provided by evaporation of volatile ices.
B. Gundlach1, J. Blum1, H. U. Keller1, Y. V. Skorov2
1

Quote:
Conclusions. In the framework of the presented model, which can be considered common in terms of assumptions and physical parameters in the cometary community, the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism. The sublimation of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding to 1.3 AU. A way out of this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.
Yu. V. Skorov1, L. Rezac1, P. Hartogh1, and H. U. Keller2

but
Quote:
And the vast cloud of dust from the comet fits the electrical machining model but not the sublimating ices model.
Thunderbolts mob!

How much dust did Philea find JD116?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 3rd August 2017 at 02:34 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 02:44 AM   #46
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,167
Quote:
Abstract
ROSETTA's probe Philae landed on a dust covered soil. This dust may be ejected from the ground through many mechanisms (other than spacecraft landing) : micro-meteorite impacts, electrostatic charging and soil outgassing. In any cases, the dust grains charge electrostatically in the ambient plasma and this charge impacts the dust interaction with the spacecraft, which is itself differentially charged due to its partial exposure to the solar UV light. Using the DUST addition to the Spacecraft-Plasma Interaction Software (SPIS) routinely used to compute the charge state of the spacecraft surfaces, we simulate the electrostatic charging of Philae as well as its dust environment. SPIS-DUST allows one to compute the electrostatic charging of the dust grains on the ground and in the plasma, and to model their ejection and their recollection by the probe. We simulated one cometary day of the Philae environment at different distances from the sun to observe the variation of the dust collection with Philae's local time.*

Simulation of the electrostatic charging of Philae on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and of its interaction with the dusts. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...with_the_dusts [accessed Aug 3, 2017].
Well you can rule out the struck thru explanations!

SIMULATION OF THE ELECTROSTATIC CHARGING OF PHILAE ON 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO AND OF ITS INTERACTION WITH THE DUSTS.
Quote:
Abstract. ROSETTA’s probe Philae landed on a dust covered soil. This dust may be ejected from the ground through many mechanisms (other than spacecraft landing) : micro-meteorite impacts, electrostatic charging and soil outgassing. In any cases, the dust grains charge electrostatically in the ambient plasma and this charge impacts the dust interaction with the spacecraft, which is itself differentially charged due to its partial exposure to the solar UV light. Using the DUST addition to the Spacecraft-Plasma Interaction Software (SPIS) routinely used to compute the charge state of the spacecraft surfaces, we simulate the electrostatic charging of Philae as well as its dust environment. SPIS-DUST allows one to compute the electrostatic charging of the dust grains on the ground and in the plasma, and to model their ejection and their recollection by the probe. We simulated one cometary day of the Philae environment at different distances from the sun to observe the variation of the dust collection with Philae’s local time.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 03:52 AM   #47
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,167
Are we able to call "consolidated materials" ROCK?

or do the mainstream have a different definition?

as in...

Quote:
We present the regional setting of Abydos and define geological units. Abydos is essentially an alcove at the foot of a scarp composed of heavily fractured consolidated materials.
LINK
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:24 AM   #48
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,167
and just for s..ts n giggles
Quote:
The Sun's surface, the photosphere, has a temperature of around 6000 degrees, but the outer atmosphere, the corona - best seen from Earth during total solar eclipses - is several hundred times hotter. How the corona is heated to millions of degrees is one of the most significant unsolved problems in astrophysics. The solution will help scientists better understand the heating of other stars.
"Why the Sun's corona is so hot is a long-standing puzzle. It's as if a flame were coming out of an ice cube. It doesn't make any sense! Solar astronomers think that the key lies in the magnetic field, but there are still arguments about the details," added Dr Brooks.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-clue-m...phere.html#jCp
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 3rd August 2017 at 04:30 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:38 AM   #49
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,282
^^^^Blah, blah, blah. And could you please point us to any detection of rock? You know, from the instruments that would detect rock? Such as MIRO, or CONSERT? No, you can't, because it doesn't exist. So, how about detections of this non-existent EDM (lol)? You think something like that could happen? And go undetected? No, and no, would be the answer to that. So, please explain how electric woo is turning granite, for instance, into fluffy dust with a density of ~ 1kg/m3. Not thought this through, have you?
Let us make this quite clear; for 2 years a spacecraft orbited this comet. It had a whole bunch of instruments that could detect all kinds of things. Two things that it most DEFINITELY didn't detect, were rock and electrical discharge woo. It is a busted flush.
And you still haven't told us what all the white stuff was around Hartley 2. Any ideas? What are Wally's 'electrical' jets made of? Well, we've known for years that the ones at Hartley 2 were CO2 gas. Eh? What were the temperatures of those jets? Consistent with electrical woo, was it? No. How big was the crater made on Tempel 1? Is that consistent with rock? No.
In short, there is zero evidence for rock, and zero evidence (let alone a valid scientific mechanism) for electrical woo hitting the comet. It is inane, unscientific, unsupported woo, based purely on the idiotic Velikovskian beliefs of a couple of chancers. End of.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:44 AM   #50
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
^^^^Blah, blah, blah. And could you please point us to any detection of rock? You know, from the instruments that would detect rock? Such as MIRO, or CONSERT? No, you can't, because it doesn't exist. So, how about detections of this non-existent EDM (lol)? You think something like that could happen? And go undetected? No, and no, would be the answer to that. So, please explain how electric woo is turning granite, for instance, into fluffy dust with a density of ~ 1kg/m3. Not thought this through, have you?
Let us make this quite clear; for 2 years a spacecraft orbited this comet. It had a whole bunch of instruments that could detect all kinds of things. Two things that it most DEFINITELY didn't detect, were rock and electrical discharge woo. It is a busted flush.
And you still haven't told us what all the white stuff was around Hartley 2. Any ideas? What are Wally's 'electrical' jets made of? Well, we've known for years that the ones at Hartley 2 were CO2 gas. Eh? What were the temperatures of those jets? Consistent with electrical woo, was it? No. How big was the crater made on Tempel 1? Is that consistent with rock? No.
In short, there is zero evidence for rock, and zero evidence (let alone a valid scientific mechanism) for electrical woo hitting the comet. It is inane, unscientific, unsupported woo, based purely on the idiotic Velikovskian beliefs of a couple of chancers. End of.
Tell Michael that...oh wait

but he did say
Quote:
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
Why would he say such a stupid thing?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:45 AM   #51
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,282
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
and just for s..ts n giggles

More inane rubbish. Care to explain how the Sun actually works? Electric, is it? Lol. Where is the current? Where is the magnetic field that surely would be created by this non-existent current? How would this non-existent current, and its magnetic field, get on when confronted by the outflowing solar wind, with its associated IMF? Answers on a postcard, because none of the woo merchants at Dunderdolts has ever answered those questions. Maybe you could be the first.
Give it up. It's all just unscientific nonsense from unqualified Velikovskian eejits. It'll turn your brain to mush. Just have a look on the Dunderbolts forum to see what I mean. Best to get out while you can.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:50 AM   #52
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,282
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Tell Michael that...oh wait

but he did say

Why would he say such a stupid thing?
I have no idea. As I said, please show us the evidence for rock. You know, from MIRO (as in the thermal properties), or CONSERT (which sent radio signals through the body of the comet). How big (for the squillionth time) was the crater at Tempel 1? What was ejected from that impact? Any rock? Any ice? Any water vapour? Two of those things were detected. One wasn't. Guess which.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:52 AM   #53
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
^^^^Blah, blah, blah. And could you please point us to any detection of rock? You know, from the instruments that would detect rock? Such as MIRO, or CONSERT? No, you can't, because it doesn't exist. So, how about detections of this non-existent EDM (lol)? You think something like that could happen? And go undetected? No, and no, would be the answer to that. So, please explain how electric woo is turning granite, for instance, into fluffy dust with a density of ~ 1kg/m3. Not thought this through, have you?
Let us make this quite clear; for 2 years a spacecraft orbited this comet. It had a whole bunch of instruments that could detect all kinds of things. Two things that it most DEFINITELY didn't detect, were rock and electrical discharge woo. It is a busted flush.
And you still haven't told us what all the white stuff was around Hartley 2. Any ideas? What are Wally's 'electrical' jets made of? Well, we've known for years that the ones at Hartley 2 were CO2 gas. Eh? What were the temperatures of those jets? Consistent with electrical woo, was it? No. How big was the crater made on Tempel 1? Is that consistent with rock? No.
In short, there is zero evidence for rock, and zero evidence (let alone a valid scientific mechanism) for electrical woo hitting the comet. It is inane, unscientific, unsupported woo, based purely on the idiotic Velikovskian beliefs of a couple of chancers. End of.
Quote:
Based on those observations we consider compact particle populations with typical densities of 3kg/m3 on the one hand and fragments as produced by the disruption of fluffy aggregates in the s/c vicinity with low densities of 1 kg/m3 on the other hand.
Looks like you've got yourself a conundrum!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:54 AM   #54
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
Are we able to call "consolidated materials" ROCK?
Call them whatever you like. What is the density of 67P? What size hole did the Tempel 1 impactor make in this consolidated material? What size would it have been if it had been granite? Or sandstone? Et boring cetera.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:54 AM   #55
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,167
Quote:
Well, we've known for years that the ones at Hartley 2 were CO2 gas. Eh?
Quote:
the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism. The sublimation of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding to 1.3 AU.
Meh
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:55 AM   #56
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,282
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Looks like you've got yourself a conundrum!
Sorry, where is the conundrum? Stop writing complete nonsense, and actually SPELL OUT what you are saying, so that we do not have to try and guess what is going on in your befuddled mind!
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:00 AM   #57
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,167
Really?

Quote:
DIRTY SNOWBALL MODEL:

Comets are composed of undifferentiated “protoplanetary debris” -- dust and ices left over from the formation of the solar system billions of years ago.

Radiant heat from the Sun sublimates the ices. The vapor expands around the nucleus to form the coma and is swept back by the solar wind to form the tail.

Over repeated passages around the Sun, solar heat vaporizes surface ice and leaves a “rind” of dust.

Where heat penetrates the surface of a blackened, shallow crust, pockets of gas form. Where the pressure breaks through the surface, energetic jets form.

ELECTRIC COMET MODEL:

Comets are debris produced during violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history. Comets are similar to asteroids, and their composition varies. Most comets should be homogeneous -- their interiors will have the same composition as their surfaces. They are simply “asteroids on eccentric orbits.”

Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath, appearing as the coma and tail.

The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs.

Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black, leaving the distinctive scarring patterns of electric discharges.

The jets' explode from cometary nuclei at supersonic speeds and retain their coherent structure for hundreds of thousands of miles. The collimation of such jets is a well-documented attribute of plasma discharge.

The tails of comets reveal well-defined filaments extending up to tens of millions of miles without dissipating in the vacuum of space. This “violation” of neutral gas behavior in a vacuum is to be expected of a plasma discharge within the ambient electric field of the Sun.

It is the electric force that holds the spherical cometary coma in place as the comet races around the Sun. The diameter of the visible coma will often reach millions of miles. And the visible coma is surrounded by an even larger and more “improbable” spherical envelope of fluorescing hydrogen visible in ultraviolet light.

The primary distinction between comet and asteroid surfaces is that electrical arcing and “electrostatic cleaning” of the comet nucleus will leave little or no dust or debris on the surface during the active phase, even if a shallow layer of dust may be attracted back to the nucleus electrostatically as the comet becomes dormant in its retreat to more remote regions.
DIRTY SNOWBALL MODEL is ALL the mainstream has!

So please JD116, tell me which model, as in the MAINSTREAM model, I should be comparing the ELECTRIC COMET model too!

Tusenfem said the Dirty Snowball model is a hang over from Whipple and is not correct, so what do YOU have?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 3rd August 2017 at 05:04 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:01 AM   #58
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,282
List of unanswered questions, just from the last few posts:
What was the white stuff around Hartley 2?
Why were Wally's electrical jets composed of cold CO2?
What was the size of the crater at Tempel 1? Is that consistent with rock?
Why didn't MIRO or CONSERT detect any rock?
Why was no EDM (lol) detected?

You might want to try and answer those, because whatever argument you are making is killed stone dead by the answers to them.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:02 AM   #59
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,282
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Really?



DIRTY SNOWBALL MODEL is ALL the mainstream has!
Jesus H. Christ. And it is backed up by a LOT of evidence. You, on the other hand, have an unscientific load of hogwash. With ZERO evidence to back it up. Guess which one we all prefer?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:12 AM   #60
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Jesus H. Christ. And it is backed up by a LOT of evidence. You, on the other hand, have an unscientific load of hogwash. With ZERO evidence to back it up. Guess which one we all prefer?
So Tusenfem is wrong?

Ok

Go ahead and tell me which model the mainstream are now using...
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:19 AM   #61
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun.
Really? Evidence, please.

Quote:
They are simply “asteroids on eccentric orbits.”
Wrong. Check out the density of asteroids v. comets.

Quote:
Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges....
Never seen. Where are they?

Quote:
The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus...
Wrong. They are dust and gas. As observed and measured.

Quote:
Intermittent and wandering arcs erode the surface and burn it black...
Really? Evidence please. Two years of in-situ observation failed to show any such thing. Pure woo.

Quote:
The jets' explode from cometary nuclei at supersonic speeds....
Really? Interesting use of the word 'supersonic'. The part of the jets that you can see, i.e. the dust, is going about 20 m/s.

Quote:
The tails of comets reveal well-defined filaments extending up to tens of millions of miles without dissipating in the vacuum of space. This “violation” of neutral gas behavior in a vacuum is to be expected of a plasma discharge within the ambient electric field of the Sun.
So wrong that it's not even wrong! That would be dust, for the most part.

Quote:
And the visible coma is surrounded by an even larger and more “improbable” spherical envelope of fluorescing hydrogen visible in ultraviolet light.
Lol. More inane nonsense. What is so improbable about it? Who wrote this crap? A couple of 13 year olds after a glue sniffing session? I quote some bloke called Alfven:
Quote:
"As a different interpretation of the Lyman-alpha emission from comets, Lai proposed [21] thermalization and recombination of solar protons at collision with the cometary dust in the coma and tail, followed by diffusion and excitation of hydrogen in the observed Lyman-alpha halo. This view might seem to be contraindicated by the fact that roughly matching amounts of oxygen are deduced from observed OH emission. Most workers would take this as a support for the concept of water molecules as the source for both dissociated hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals."
ASTEROID AND COMET EXPLORATION
Arrhenius, G., Alfven, H., Fitzgerald, R., 1973
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9730018994.pdf

Quote:
The primary distinction between comet and asteroid surfaces is that electrical arcing and “electrostatic cleaning” of the comet nucleus will leave little or no dust or debris on the surface during the active phase.....
Wrong. Lots of dust, as seen, and collected.

So, all in all, a complete bunch of rubbish, yes?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:20 AM   #62
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,282
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So Tusenfem is wrong?

Ok

Go ahead and tell me which model the mainstream are now using...
Again, your post makes zero sense. SPELL OUT what you are on about. I am not psychic.

ETA: OK, so you're still prattling on about the 'dirty snowball', yes? That has changed in the 60 some years since Whipple coined the term. Eh?

EETA: I'm not 100% sure that Whipple did coin the term. It may have been adopted by others, possibly the media, based on his model. Which, by the way, is a hell of a lot closer to reality than the garbage dreamed up by T & T. Despite the fact that they had over 50 more years of observations to base their rubbish on than Whipple had!
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

Last edited by jonesdave116; 3rd August 2017 at 05:39 AM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 05:58 AM   #63
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
SIMULATION OF THE ELECTROSTATIC CHARGING OF PHILAE ON 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO AND OF ITS INTERACTION WITH THE DUSTS.
You seem to be missing the point. According to Wally and his mate, there shouldn't be ANY dust around to do anything, when the comet is active:

Quote:
The primary distinction between comet and asteroid surfaces is that electrical arcing and “electrostatic cleaning” of the comet nucleus will leave little or no dust or debris on the surface during the active phase.....
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 06:30 AM   #64
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,058
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So Tusenfem is wrong?

Ok

Go ahead and tell me which model the mainstream are now using...
i am always rght and that idiocy from ec is not even wrong
will comment later, today i celebrate one more rounding of tne non-electrical sun
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 08:14 AM   #65
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,261
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
DIRTY SNOWBALL MODEL is ALL the mainstream has!

Sol, you cling to this strawman like a little kid clutching a security blanket. I'd like you to give it up but then all you'd be left with is taunts.

But the lurkers see who brings evidence and who doesn't. Heck, the EC fails right out of the box based on bulk density data alone. Until you bring a real explanation for that (not that bogus electrical nonsense) there's really no need to get into anything more.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 01:49 PM   #66
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie of "only ever had Whipples model" because models existed before Whipple

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The mainstream only ever had Whipples model!
4 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of "only ever had Whipples model" because comet models existed before Whipple was born!
Fred Lawrence Whipple (November 5, 1906 – August 30, 2004) and astronomers have been writing about comets for centuries before his birth, e.g. Isaac Newton, Immanuel Kant (1775) and Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel (1836).

4 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of Whipple's model being a bust.
The Whipple model is that comets are made of ices and dust with ices dominating. And rocks (which will probably evoke a meaningless rant from Sol88), which are not important until they are left behind at the end of a comet's lifetime, e.g. to give meteor showers. What has changed is that we have seen the ice does not dominate as much as Whipple proposed over 60 years ago.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd August 2017 at 01:55 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 02:12 PM   #67
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Thumbs down Sol88: A link to the ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult dogma about comets

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
LINK
4 August 2017 Sol88: A link to the ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult dogma about comets that has been debunked for 8 years in tis thread alone !

4 August 2017 Sol88: Repeats his lie of a Michael F. A’Hearn quote stating that comets are rocks.

4 August 2017 Sol88: Cites again () two papers about dust activity on comets made of ices and dust.
[url="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11943197#post11943197"]3 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about contradictions between comets of ices and dust and a paper on dust activity.[/URL

4 August 2017 Sol88: Quotes abysmally ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult lies.
There are no electric discharges on comet nuclei so no delusions of "electrical machining".
The vast cloud of dust from the comet does match the sublimating ices model, i.e. sublimating ices create dust jets that put dust into the coma. Which leads to:
4 August 2017 Sol88: Implies abysmal ignorance about the papers he cites which are not about dust jets.
What drives the dust activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko? by B. Gundlach, J. Blum, H. U. Keller, Y. V. Skorov (June 2015)
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Skorov, Rezac, Hartogh and Keller (2017).
These papers have models of the interaction between a layer of dust and the underlying ices. The dust activity is dust lifting throughout the interface between the dust and ices.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 02:23 PM   #68
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Thumbs down Sol88: We can rule in your delusion about comets being rock leading to lies

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well you can rule out the struck thru explanations!
4 August 2017 Sol88: We can rule in your delusion about comets being rock leading to lies by altering a paper abstract.
Simulation of the electrostatic charging of Philae on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and of its interaction with the dusts
Quote:
ROSETTA's probe Philae landed on a dust covered soil. This dust may be ejected from the ground through many mechanisms (other than spacecraft landing) : micro-meteorite impacts, electrostatic charging and soil outgassing. In any cases, the dust grains charge electrostatically in the ambient plasma and this charge impacts the dust interaction with the spacecraft, which is itself differentially charged due to its partial exposure to the solar UV light. Using the DUST addition to the Spacecraft-Plasma Interaction Software (SPIS) routinely used to compute the charge state of the spacecraft surfaces, we simulate the electrostatic charging of Philae as well as its dust environment. SPIS-DUST allows one to compute the electrostatic charging of the dust grains on the ground and in the plasma, and to model their ejection and their recollection by the probe. We simulated one cometary day of the Philae environment at different distances from the sun to observe the variation of the dust collection with Philae's local time.
All comets are made of a mixture of ices and dust. That mixture can emit dust through many mechanisms.
  • micro-meteorite impacts literally knocking dust grains out of the ices/dust mixture onto the surface.
  • electrostatic charging of the dust grains pushing them out of the ices/dust mixture onto the surface.
  • soil outgassing removing ices from the ices/dust mixture to leave the grains exposed on the surface.
  • soil outgassing pushing dust grains from the ices/dust mixture onto the surface.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 02:32 PM   #69
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Thumbs down Sol88: The delusion that "consolidated materials" means rock blasted from the Earth

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Are we able to call "consolidated materials" ROCK?
Not to support your delusion that comets are ROCK with this ROCK blasted from the Earth turning the surface into a sea of lave in recent times.
4 August 2017 Sol88: The delusion that "consolidated materials" means rock blasted from the Earth to form comets in recent times.
Characterization of the Abydos landing site of Philae on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (PDF) uses the rational definition of "consolidated materials" in the context of comets - ices and dust that have consolidated into a cohesive material.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 02:44 PM   #70
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Thumbs down Sol88: The insanity of labeling working solar physics as beating a dead horse

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
and just for s..ts n giggles
Ignorant parroting of the Thunderbolts cult dogma is never funny. This may be the "Sun is "not powered by thermonuclear reactions at the core" stupidity we saw in the EU2017 conference web page.

4 August 2017 Sol88: The insanity of labeling working solar physics as beating a dead horse after his 8 years of beating his dead, ignorant, deluded horse of comets are rock!

4 August 2017 Sol88: A lie by highlighting a phrase in a quote and ignoring that the entire article is about making sense of the heating of the solar corona.
New clue to solving the mystery of the Sun's hot atmosphere
Quote:
The elemental composition of the Sun's hot atmosphere known as the 'corona' is strongly linked to the 11-year solar magnetic activity cycle, a team of scientists from UCL, George Mason University and Naval Research Laboratory has revealed for the first time.

The study, published in Nature Communications and funded by the NASA Hinode program, shows that an increase in magnetic activity goes hand in hand with an increase of certain elements, such as Iron, in the solar corona. It is thought that the results could have significant implications for understanding the process leading to the heating of the Sun's corona.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 02:53 PM   #71
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Thumbs down Sol88: The "stupid thing" is repeating a lie about a A’Hearn quote

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Why would he say such a stupid thing?
4 August 2017 Sol88: The "stupid thing" is repeating a lie again about a A’Hearn quote being about your delusions that comets are rock.
For a start I will document the repeated lie yet again for everyone in the world to read for the lifetime of the Internet!
6 July 2017 Sol88: Makes an implied lie into an explicit lie. Michael F. A’Hearn never stated that comets are rocks as in your delusion.

The quote is Michael F. A’Hearn explicating stating that comets are made of ices and refractory (rock) material:
Quote:
...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
You are insulting Michael F. A’Hearn by implying that he is ignorant and deluded enough that comets are rocks.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd August 2017 at 03:11 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 03:08 PM   #72
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Thumbs down Sol88: Denies the uselessness of his delusion that comets are rock

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Looks like you've got yourself a conundrum!
4 August 2017 Sol88: Denies the uselessness of his delusion that comets are rocks by ignoring the question.

4 August 2017 Sol88: How is electric woo is turning granite, for instance, into fluffy dust with a density of ~ 1kg/m?
And
4 August 2017 Sol88: How is electric woo is turning granite, for instance, into fluffy dust that is not granite?
Stardust and Rosetta did not collect any grains of granite.
Stardust and Rosetta did not collect any grains of basalt.
Stardust and Rosetta did not collect any grains of limestone.
Stardust and Rosetta did not collect any grains of sandstone.

But we have deafening silence emphasizing the complete ignorance of science behind the comets are rocks delusion:
11 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict abut the observation of cold and warm electrons at 67P?
6 July 2017 Sol88: What does a rotating charged body do (so far a display of complete ignorance of basic electromagnetism!)?
7 July 2017 Sol88: What did your comets are rocks delusion predict about the impact of Rosetta on 67P?
27 July 2017 Sol88: Did the Stardust mission sample the subsurface composition of comet Wild 2?
27 July 2017 Sol88: Where is the EU prediction of subsurface composition in the "Subsurface composition" paragraph or linked web page?
27 July 2017 Sol88: What does a deluded denial of the formation of the Solar System have to do with the EU subsurface composition of comets
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2017, 10:12 AM   #73
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,730
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
List of unanswered questions, just from the last few posts:
What was the white stuff around Hartley 2?
Why were Wally's electrical jets composed of cold CO2?
What was the size of the crater at Tempel 1? Is that consistent with rock?
Why didn't MIRO or CONSERT detect any rock?
Why was no EDM (lol) detected?

You might want to try and answer those, because whatever argument you are making is killed stone dead by the answers to them.
Add to that the other questions Sol88 can't answer

1. Why don't Apollo bodies have comas?
2. Why do only five of the asteroid belt object shows comas, even though hundreds of other asteroid belt objects go through exactly the same space and orbits?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2017, 12:43 PM   #74
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,282
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Add to that the other questions Sol88 can't answer

1. Why don't Apollo bodies have comas?
2. Why do only five of the asteroid belt object shows comas, even though hundreds of other asteroid belt objects go through exactly the same space and orbits?
Interesting questions. If all this unobserved electrical woo were to do with the eccentricity of the orbits, why are there MBCs with comae, in almost circular orbits, not to mention the centaur, 29P Schwassmann-Wachmann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29P/Sc...%80%93Wachmann), and Apollo bodies without them? Such as the asteroid 4179 Toutatis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4179_Toutatis) which has an aphelion of > 4 AU, and a perihelion of < 1 AU.
I think the answer comes from the fact that pretty much whenever we look at one of these bodies with a coma, we see water. Which comes from ice. It isn't OH, and it isn't due to some sort of woo involving the SW ploughing into non-existent O- ions, which have(n't) been created by EDM (lol) woo. That would seem to be the crux of it, imho.
Which might explain why Wally did a preview piece for the EPOXI Hartley 2 encounter on hollowscience, but then never did a follow up piece after the encounter. Given that he bases his woo on press releases, and the press releases from that mission were full of news of carbon dioxide jets, and pretty pictures of shed loads of ice around the comet, one can probably see why he went quiet. I guess there may still be a handful of the faithful, dotted around the planet, who still believe this nonsense, though.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

Last edited by jonesdave116; 4th August 2017 at 12:44 PM. Reason: Forgot to put the customary 'lol' after EDM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2017, 11:41 PM   #75
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,435
Re mainbelt asteroids which are also comets: let's not forget that there's a Zooniverse citizen science project which aims to discover more, and characterize the known ones better, Comet Hunters (https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/.../comet-hunters).

Given the objectives of this project, you'd think the Electric Comet people would be all over it, right? However, their involvement is ... (you fill in the blanks)

It's almost as if the last thing they want to do is get involved in any actual scientific research, even when it's as simple as mouse clicks ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2017, 04:54 PM   #76
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,282
EU Ignorance

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Re mainbelt asteroids which are also comets: let's not forget that there's a Zooniverse citizen science project which aims to discover more, and characterize the known ones better, Comet Hunters (https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/.../comet-hunters).

Given the objectives of this project, you'd think the Electric Comet people would be all over it, right? However, their involvement is ... (you fill in the blanks)

It's almost as if the last thing they want to do is get involved in any actual scientific research, even when it's as simple as mouse clicks ...
I've had a butcher's, JT. Cheers. (for anybody in the former colonies, 'butcher's = butcher's hook = look). When do you think these eejits will ever figure out that they are talking rubbish? Mozina; we don't have to worry about. That is a given. Idiot believes in a solid iron Sun. Forget that Burke; What about the rest of the nutters? Is there anybody there who can do maths? Equations? Certainly not the idiot Thornhill. Or Talbott. Anyone else? Nope. Had a butcher's, and it seems that they are bereft of scientifically literate mouthpieces. Surprise, surprise. Surely, after nearly 3 decades of this crap, they might actually have something? Yes? Evidently not.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2017, 01:12 AM   #77
SelfSim
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
I've had a butcher's, JT. Cheers. (for anybody in the former colonies, 'butcher's = butcher's hook = look). When do you think these eejits will ever figure out that they are talking rubbish? Mozina; we don't have to worry about. That is a given. Idiot believes in a solid iron Sun. Forget that Burke; What about the rest of the nutters? Is there anybody there who can do maths? Equations? Certainly not the idiot Thornhill. Or Talbott. Anyone else? Nope. Had a butcher's, and it seems that they are bereft of scientifically literate mouthpieces. Surprise, surprise. Surely, after nearly 3 decades of this crap, they might actually have something? Yes? Evidently not.
As an aside, Mozina's delusion of his predictive grandeur has grown over time and now evidently permits him to openly declare that his personal opinions "had greater predictive value than the collective "professional opinions" of all 200+ BICEP2 authors".

He also believes he is on the brink of doing it all again when it comes to the entire LIGO team's GW detections!

... I tell ya, he's become a true legend in his own lunchtime!
SelfSim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2017, 11:42 PM   #78
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Sol, you cling to this strawman like a little kid clutching a security blanket. I'd like you to give it up but then all you'd be left with is taunts.

But the lurkers see who brings evidence and who doesn't. Heck, the EC fails right out of the box based on bulk density data alone. Until you bring a real explanation for that (not that bogus electrical nonsense) there's really no need to get into anything more.
So what is the model that mainstream use to interpret the data and observations then Fred burfle?

The dirtysnowball was bust the first time we flew a probe past a comet but why let that stop a good fairytale.

I clutch it like a security blanket because the mainstream will not let it go.

No lurkers or posters here have offered any alternative.

The ELECTRIC COMET has offered another model to interpret the data and so far so good for the EC.

Would you like to talk Jets types I,II,II?

See how the dirtysnowballs(or whatever the model now is) stack up?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 8th August 2017 at 11:45 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 07:22 AM   #79
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,058
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The dirtysnowball was bust the first time we flew a probe past a comet but why let that stop a good fairytale.
Then why do YOU keep on insisting that the mainstream model is "the dirty snowball"?
None of the mainstream proponents it making that claim, it is ONLY YOU!

Why not read a paper by Martin Rubin on how he models the outgassing of a comet? Why not read the papers by other Rosetta scientists who discover all kinds of (new) stuff, improving our knowledge of how comets work?

Why have your thunderdolts buddies and you not even looked at actual data from the Rosetta mission and from Vega 1, 2, Giotto etc. which are all freely available on the ESA and NASA data servers?

Oh, wait, that would take you out of your security blanket, confront you with new knowledge and updated models.

Heck, I expected to find X at 67P, what I found was Y, now I need to understand why Y, what makes it so (apart from Captain Pickard telling me to). That is the frakking greatness of doing scientific research. You never know what bone you get thrown. We (I) understand the basics very well, but now having this incredible amount of new data at a comet with an activity much less than we have ever visited before, makes us (me) think about things we have not thought of before, because at the earlier flybys it was not necessary to think about them.

But Sol, please stay inside your security zone, singing your mantra: "mainstream is snowball, snowstream is mainball, streamball in snowmain, I'm in my safe domain".
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 01:55 PM   #80
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie about "dirtysnowball was bust" and was a fairytale

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The dirtysnowball was bust the first time we flew a probe past a comet but why let that stop a good fairytale.
10 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about "dirtysnowball was bust" and was a fairytale.
The evidence that comets are made of ices and dust has been gathered for over 60 years and nothing has invalidated that evidence. Comets are still less dense than water. Comets still emit gases and dust in their jets. Comets still have water ices detected on their surface. etc. etc.

His comets are rocks delusion has been delusional for over 60 years with the first measurements of comet density !

10 August 2017 Sol88: Usual ignorance about science - the first flyby of a comet was of Halley's Comet which happens to fit the description of a dirty snowball!
This was the International Cometary Explorer and the 5 spacecraft in the Halley Armada in 1986. No announcement of comets not being "dirty snowballs"! No flyby mission showed changed this description. It was the ejecta from the Deep Impact mission on Comet Tempel 1 which lead to the additional "snowy dirtball" description. In 2014 other research gave us the "deep fried ice cream" description.
The reality is that comets are made of ices and dust in varying proportions. We have not enough data to say which description is the best overall one and thus we use them all.

10 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of there being a electric comet model - delusions are not scientific models.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Would you like to talk Jets types I,II,II?
=
The subject of the thread is the electric comet theory so
10 August 2017 Sol88: Give the electric comet theory explanation for "Jets types I,II,II"?
Start with your source for these types of jets.
Given 8 years of ignorance about comets and "comets are rocks" delusions from you this will probably be mindless parroting of Thunderbolts cult dogma about electrical discharges, etc.

However this Looks like Sol88's ignorance yet again !
There are type I and II tails. Comet
Quote:
The streams of dust and gas each form their own distinct tail, pointing in slightly different directions. The tail of dust is left behind in the comet's orbit in such a manner that it often forms a curved tail called the type II or dust tail.[52] At the same time, the ion or type I tail, made of gases, always points directly away from the Sun because this gas is more strongly affected by the solar wind than is dust, following magnetic field lines rather than an orbital trajectory.[61] On occasions - such as when the Earth passes through a comet's orbital plane, a tail pointing in the opposite direction to the ion and dust tails called the antitail may be seen.[62]

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th August 2017 at 02:15 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.