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 14th August 2017, 02:14 PM   #161
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Thumbs down Sol88: Delusion of a "very good thermally insulating" layer

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So how does the h2o, co2, co gas sublimating under a very good thermally insulating dust granular layer to do its thing thru something as hard as rock ice?
15 August 2017 Sol88: Resurrected delusion of a "very good thermally insulating" layer.
The Man replied with a list of links to science that Sol88 has persistently denied with this ignorant question.
Comets heat up as they get closer to the Sun. This is fairly uniform - hotter on the sunlit side, cooler on the night side and throughout the nucleus. Ices sublimate when they are heated enough. That they are covered with a layer of dust and a layer of sintered dust & ices does not change this. That sublimation also applies to the layer of sintered dust & ices !
There is an implied second delusion - that this layer of sintered dust & ices is universal, i.e. covers the entire surface of 67P and every other comet. The varied terrain of comets makes this wrong. We have no reason to think that the cliffs on 67P have this layer. We see jets coming from pits that are deeper than the layer. There are some craters on 67P which show outgassing. The first impact of Philae was on a relatively soft surface:
Surprising Comet Discoveries by Rosetta's Philae Lander Unveiled
Quote:
A diverse surface
While Philae's double-bounce touchdown doubtless frayed some nerves among the lander team, it actually has provided some scientific benefits. For example, researchers were able to characterize 67P's surface at both the initial and final touchdown sites (which have been dubbed Agilkia and Abydos, respectively).

And those two sites are quite different, it turns out. Agilkia's surface is relatively soft, covered with a layer of granular material about 0.82 feet (0.25 meters) deep, while Abydos is much harder.

15 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of a "something as hard as rock" (even struck out).
Thermal and mechanical properties of the near-surface layers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
The MUPUS results were a "sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65%". Over 67 years of observations show that comets are ices and dust (Whipple published his model in 1950 based on existing data).

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th August 2017 at 02:26 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 06:47 PM   #162
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,178
You beauty!!

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/issue/469/Suppl_2
__________________
"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 14th August 2017, 07:29 PM   #163
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,178
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
15 August 2017 Sol88: Resurrected delusion of a "very good thermally insulating" layer.
The Man replied with a list of links to science that Sol88 has persistently denied with this ignorant question.
Comets heat up as they get closer to the Sun. This is fairly uniform - hotter on the sunlit side, cooler on the night side and throughout the nucleus. Ices sublimate when they are heated enough. That they are covered with a layer of dust and a layer of sintered dust & ices does not change this. That sublimation also applies to the layer of sintered dust & ices !
There is an implied second delusion - that this layer of sintered dust & ices is universal, i.e. covers the entire surface of 67P and every other comet. The varied terrain of comets makes this wrong. We have no reason to think that the cliffs on 67P have this layer. We see jets coming from pits that are deeper than the layer. There are some craters on 67P which show outgassing. The first impact of Philae was on a relatively soft surface:
Surprising Comet Discoveries by Rosetta's Philae Lander Unveiled



15 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of a "something as hard as rock" (even struck out).
Thermal and mechanical properties of the near-surface layers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
The MUPUS results were a "sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65%". Over 67 years of observations show that comets are ices and dust (Whipple published his model in 1950 based on existing data).
Yup, looks like you've got the dirtysnowball down pat 'ol mate!

That's exactly how I remember it being told to me in primary school. Great to see we've moved on..not.

looks like the bulk density has got you mob stumped! Really quite funny watching the mainstream trying smash a round peg into a square hole!!

If you'd actuality read and UNDERSTAND the papers they calibrated the MUPUS-PEN in to
Quote:
Table 1. PEN hammer calibration data. The table collects PEN hammer calibration results in three foam glasses of differing strength. Foam glasses T4 and F are commercially available. Foam glass SRC was produced at Space Research Centre (SRC) Warsaw for the prelaunch calibration measurements. The samples were kept for reference at SRC Warsaw. Listed are the uniaxial compressive strengths as given by the manufacturers for foam glasses T4 and F, and the results of control measurements done at Technische Universität (TU) Graz in 2015 for foam glasses F and SRC along with a value calculated for T4 ( 22 ) using data of a shear deformation measurement. Also given is the static penetration resistance measured at SRC Warsaw (supplementary materials). The static penetration resistance per unit area is the strength of a material into which a pile is driven.The compressive strength is measured by placing a sample cylinder between two plates of the same radius. For a homogenous, isotropic medium and a thin pile, the static penetration resistance per unit area should be twice the uniaxial compressive strength for geometrical reasons of stress propagation. The table further gives the rate of penetration progress in millimeters per four hammer strokes at the four energy levels of the hammer mechanism. The energy stored in the capacitor of the mechanism is listed per level.The efficiency of the PEN mechanism, defined as the ratio of deformational energy to the energy stored, was found to be ~10%.
So are you saying the
Quote:
"sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65%".
is the same as the foam glasses?

Because from the table above that's how they calibrated the penetrator! Can you imagine the surprise when the layer was harder (way harder) than expected and the penetrator was recoiling off the hard stuff.
Quote:
An independent estimate of the strength can be made by using the efficiency c of the hammer mechanism of 10% and taking the downward movements of the hammer tip d of ~3 mm re- corded by the DS as deformation of the surface (the stronger upward movements interpreted as recoil).
all that can be CONFIRMED is the layer the penetrator would not penetrate is greater than 4mpa and that's IT!
Quote:
The lack of progress into the subsurface can be interpreted as being caused by a near-surface layer of a strength the PEN was not capable of penetrating.
The rest is banging that round peg. WHAT could be so hard on the surface of a comet? can't be rock or solid ice cause your nucleus bulk density would be incorrect, which we KNOW is correct!

From the paper Thermal and mechanical properties of the near-surface layers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
__________________
"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; 14th August 2017 at 07:34 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 14th August 2017, 07:29 PM   #164
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You beauty!!
Nothing in this mainstream journal supports your delusions that comets are rocks, etc.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 469, Issue Suppl_2, 21 July 2017
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 07:37 PM   #165
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Thumbs down Sol88:A lie of "looks like the bulk density has got you mob stumped!"

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
Usual stuff:
15 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of "looks like the bulk density has got you mob stumped!" when it is you has the delusion that comets are rocks and their bulk density is measured to be less than that of water.
The bulk density of comets has been measured for over 67 years and stumps no one who can read which is what makes the statement into a lie.

15 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant delusion about the MUPUS-PEN calibration in the lab being what MUPUS detected on 67P.
This is basic science. We have an instrument. We want to use it to make measurements of a property. We calibrate that instrument using materials with already known properties. For example, we might calibrate a thermometer by looking at what it reads with ice and with boiling water. Using that thermometer to measure the temperature of a person does not make them into ice or boiling water !
Table 1. PEN hammer calibration data is the calibration of the hammer against materials with already known properties.

15 August 2017 Sol88: Repeating his delusions that comets are rocks, etc.

15 August 2017 Sol88: The idiocy that a "sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65%" = bulk density.

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th August 2017 at 08:05 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 07:50 PM   #166
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
194 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 13 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
Not yet 2 days and we already have:
  1. 14 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about a imaginary "fatal problem" for the mainstream model.
  2. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Deep ignorance about what he quotes as usual!
  3. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Another lie about the Skorov et. al. (2017) paper.
  4. 14 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant fantasy about Skorov et. al which is not about outbursts.
  5. 14 August 2017 Sol88: The bad act of not giving a link to his source again!
  6. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Debunks his comet are rocks delusion by citing a thermal lag paper!
  7. 14 August 2017 Sol88: A "surprise" lie that dust from 67P is charged.
  8. 14 August 2017 Sol88: A lying question exposing his comets are rocks delusion yet again.
  9. 14 August 2017 Sol88: A derail from his comets are rock delusion to his ignorance about comets!
  10. 14 August 2017 Sol88: The repeated lie of putting ice in quotes.
  11. 14 August 2017 Sol88: The "MUPUS tried to hammer into rock" delusion raises its ugly head again!
  12. 14 August 2017 Sol88: A delusion that questions about the electric comet theory are irrelevant to a thread about the electric comet theory.
  13. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from?
  14. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Gibberish about not looking thru the telescope.
  15. 14 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant question about Philae emphasizes 8 years of delusion that comets are rock.
  16. 15 August 2017 Sol88: Two lies about a Spohn & Ball paper
  17. 15 August 2017 Sol88: Resurrected delusion of a "very good thermally insulating" layer.
  18. 15 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of a "something as hard as rock" (even struck out).
  19. 15 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of "looks like the bulk density has got you mob stumped!" when it is you has the delusion that comets are rocks and their bulk density is measured to be less than that of water.
  20. 15 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant delusion about the MUPUS-PEN calibration in the lab being what MUPUS detected on 67P.
  21. 15 August 2017 Sol88: Repeating his delusions that comets are rocks, etc.
  22. 15 August 2017 Sol88: The idiocy that a "sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65%" = bulk density.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 07:53 PM   #167
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So are you saying the is the same as the foam glasses?
Read what I wrote:
15 August 2017 Sol88: Two lies about a Spohn & Ball paper
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Firstly, Sol88 lies about a layer of ices & dust being an assumption when the authors test to see if the data matches a high porosity dust-ice layer.
Secondly, Sol88 lies about the authors blindly following Whipple's model. The authors are not so ignorant and deluded to think that comets are rocks. They know the measured density of comets. They especially know the measured density of 67P !
I am saying that your delusions have lead you to lie about that paper which gets more deluded with that question:
15 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant delusion about the MUPUS-PEN calibration in the lab being what MUPUS detected on 67P.

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th August 2017 at 07:55 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 09:34 PM   #168
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,178
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Read what I wrote:
15 August 2017 Sol88: Two lies about a Spohn & Ball paper

I am saying that your delusions have lead you to lie about that paper which gets more deluded with that question:
15 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant delusion about the MUPUS-PEN calibration in the lab being what MUPUS detected on 67P.
So show me the paper where they tested the MUPUS-PEN for penetration into a sintered ice layer of 30% to 65% porosity at the temperatures measured on 67P...

In actual fact it could be any thing greater than 4mpa! Maybe even "well consolidated material"!!!
__________________
"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; 14th August 2017 at 09:40 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 14th August 2017, 10:27 PM   #169
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Thumbs down Sol88: An "anything" fantasy - the layer had to be ices and dust

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
In actual fact it could be any thing greater than 4mpa!
15 August 2017 Sol88: An "anything" fantasy - the layer MUPUS hammered into had to be ices and dust because that is the composition of comets.
15 August 2017 Sol88: Two lies about a Spohn & Ball paper
15 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant delusion about the MUPUS-PEN calibration in the lab being what MUPUS detected on 67P.[/quote]

15 August 2015 Sol88: The delusion that "well consolidated material" means his comets are rocks delusion?
When astronomers talk about well consolidated materials on comets they mean ices and dust that is packed closer to together than looser ices and dust. So instead of ices and dust with an average porosity of 70% as detected in the bulk of 67P there may be ices and dust with a porosity of 30% as in
Quote:
A sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65% is consistent with the data

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th August 2017 at 10:28 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 10:33 PM   #170
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So show me the paper where they tested the MUPUS-PEN ...
Supposed to be humorous but exposes your inability to understand what you read, namely the text after Table 1. PEN hammer calibration data where the authors explain
Quote:
Laboratory data on the strength of ice and ice dust mixtures are rare at relevant temperatures as measured at Abydos.
They found 5 relevant papers.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 12:09 AM   #171
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,178
Oh and since it's one of your favourite gripes on my lack of maths skills and since your so bloody good at it
Quote:
Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
but instead of using tensile strength estimate of <12 kPa (Deep Impact crater observation for comet Tempel-1 resulted in a tensile strength estimate of <12 kPa) try using the MEASURED tensile strength of >4Mpa.

Knock your self out champ!

A crater and its ejecta: An interpretation of Deep Impact Keep this in mind though
Quote:
3.4. Highly porous materials For this case we can only make rough estimates, based entirely on the two experiments mentioned above, and assuming the comet material behaves similarly to the experiments. The predicted crater diameter would be 22 m. The crater would have a mass on the order of 3.4×105 kg and the ejected mass would be 1.7 × 105 kg. About 3.1 × 104 kg would escape, or about 18% of the total, on the same order of mass as for the rock case. The ejecta mass would decrease rapidly over the first few hours. The time dependence was plotted in Fig. 3.
Quote:
3.3. Nonporous materials: rocks and water A lower limit for crater size and ejected mass would be for a rocky target. While it is not likely that Tempel 1 is as strong as a terrestrial soft rock, this case is included for completeness. A typical strength for soft rock targets (Holsapple, 1993) is 3 MPa, which gives a predicted crater diameter of 11 m. The crater volume would be only 79 m3, its mass 3.9×104 kg, and its ejecta mass 2 ×104 kg. All of the ejecta would have velocities well in excess of the escape speed, with the slowest having a velocity of about 72 m/s. The ejecta plume would therefore have small but constant mass in time (Fig. 3). The crater would form in only 31 ms. Finally the limit case of water is considered. That case gives an appropriate upper limit for crater size and ejected mass when the surface is nonporous (so it couples the impactor energy well) but of negligible strength. In this limiting case, the predicted crater would be 356 m in diameter, take 11 min to form, and 9.7×106 kg would remain in the far-field plume, although that mass would be only 0.3% of the total ejected mass. The rest would fall back to the surface.
And your comfortable enough to hang you hat on the results... shows.
__________________
"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; 15th August 2017 at 12:24 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 15th August 2017, 01:50 PM   #172
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Exclamation Sol88: A lie about "lack of maths skills" - it is your fear of physics

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Oh and since it's one of your favourite gripes on my lack of maths skills and since your so bloody good at it
16 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about "lack of maths skills" - that question exposes your fear of basic physics!
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
An abysmal "lack of maths skills" is a different matter:
16 August 2017 Sol88: Reminds everyone of 8 years of the delusion that 0.6 is 3.0.
The measured average density of comets is 0.6 g/cc.
The measured average density of asteroids is 3.0 g/cc.

16 August 2017 Sol88: Ignorant statement about Rosetta (launched before Deep Impact)!
Rosetta was a space probe built by the European Space Agency launched on 2 March 2004
Deep Impact was a NASA space probe launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station at 18:47 UTC on January 12, 2005
The design and testing of MUPUS-PEN was years before 2004.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 01:57 PM   #173
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Thumbs down Sol88: The idiocy of citing a paper giving Tempel 1 was softer than predicted

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Let us keep in mind:
16 August 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a paper that means that Comet Tempel 1 was softer than predicted!
You quote sections 3.4 and 3.3. The predicted crater diameter would be 22 m. and an unlikely "terrestrial soft rock ... which gives a predicted crater diameter of 11 m.". The measured crater diameter was about 150 meters !
Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
For your delusion that comets are rock, the predicted crater diameter is ~7 meters.

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th August 2017 at 02:06 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 03:23 PM   #174
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,178
What surface changes happened on Tempel 1 in the 6 years before stardust came past to re image the nucleus?

Are you saying RC, the crater stayed in pristine condition when there are obvious surface changes.

You have seen the blurry grainy pictures they used to measure the diameter of the crater?

I'd expect there to be an electrical component to the impact crater as documented HERE the central mound and the dark "ring" are signature of electrical scarring.

First hint would have been the double flash that Wal Thornhill predicted and the far more energetic "explosion" that was observed, that stopped the primary mission achieving its goal.

If it was ice
Quote:
Water ice was detected in the ejecta.[7] The water ice came from 1 meter below the surface crust (the devolatized layer around the nucleus).[7]
wiki, then how much sublimed away to make the crater bigger?

Would this not be expected under the mainstream common cometary model?
__________________
"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; 16th August 2017 at 03:27 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 16th August 2017, 04:21 PM   #175
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Thumbs down Sol88: Ignorant fantasies and lies about Deep Impact and Tempel 1

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Are you saying RC, the crater stayed in pristine condition when there are obvious surface changes.
17 August 2017 Sol88: Ignorant fantasies and lies about Deep Impact and Tempel 1.
His 8 year long delusion is that comets are rocks. So he wants sublimation (that he thinks does not exist) making a crater in rock bigger !

17 August 2017 Sol88: A link to his ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult.

17 August 2017 Sol88: His delusion that the craters are electric.

17 August 2017 Sol88: His delusion that "the central mound and the dark "ring" are signature of electrical scarring".

17 August 2017 Sol88: A "dark ring" lie (there is the light ring of the crater rim with a shadow).

17 August 2017 Sol88: Mindless parroting of Wal Thornhill's "double flash" & energy lies.
28 November 2010 (): The lies, failures and "successes" of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions
Quote:
17 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of "that stopped the primary mission achieving its goal".
The primary mission of Deep Impact was to hit the comet so that the ejecta could be observed to study its internal composition. That succeeded.

Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88)
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. [/

Last edited by Reality Check; 16th August 2017 at 04:42 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 04:39 PM   #176
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Some science for those who are interested.
Before and after images of the Deep Impact site are at Tempel 1 Impact Site. Some notes.
  • The Deep Impact before image is a composite so processed a bit.
  • The sizes of the other features in the before and after images have not measurably changed.
  • It looks like the images were taken at different times of "day" since the shadows are different in the Stardust-NExT image.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 05:01 PM   #177
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,178
So just a best guesstimate then?

Nothing can be measured from the photo supplied, in fact it looks very much like the alcove and the pit like feature to the North have joined together!

So unless you're really clutching at straws the crater size is nothing but based on prior expectations!

e.g we expected to hit dust and ice and we did, yay!

but when we measured the surface of a comet and expected to measure the hardness of said dust and ice we found it to be much, much harder than expected and because that DOES not fit with expectation of what a comet should be made out of it's relegated to the data that does not "fit" our expectations bin.

If the impactor did indeed (more than likely hit "well consolidated terrain") impact soft rock one would expect more dust than ice, as observed (and predicted).
__________________
"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; 16th August 2017 at 06:31 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 16th August 2017, 06:58 PM   #178
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Thumbs down Sol88: Delusions and lies about the Stardust-NExT image and MUPUS results

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So just a best guesstimate then?
17 August 2017 Sol88: Delusions and lies about the Stardust-NExT image and MUPUS results.
  • A "guesstimate" delusion.
    The size of the crater is a measurement. All the image quality does is add more uncertainty to the measurement. The crater is 150 +/ 10 meters wide rather than Instead of 150 +/- 1 meters wide (example uncertainties only).
  • A ""prior expectations" lie.
    The size of the crater is a measurement from the image, not any expectations.
  • A lie of "it's relegated to the data that does not "fit" our expectations bin".
    What the MUPUS result showed was that 1 location on 1 comet had a harder than designed for layer of ices and dust. That data has been put into the bin of "explained data".
17 August 2017 Sol88: Adds a delusion that Deep Impact hit "soft rock"
17 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about a prediction of the amount of dust and ices from Deep Impact hitting rock.
17 August 2015 Sol88: The delusion that "well consolidated terrain" means his comets are rocks delusion.

Last edited by Reality Check; 16th August 2017 at 07:07 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 07:13 PM   #179
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
An update to the items of ignorance, delusion and lies list:
216 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 13 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
  1. 15 August 2015 Sol88: The delusion that "well consolidated material" means his comets are rocks delusion.
  2. 16 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about "lack of maths skills" - that question exposes your fear of basic physics!
  3. 16 August 2017 Sol88: Reminds everyone of 8 years of the delusion that 0.6 is 3.0.
  4. 16 August 2017 Sol88: Ignorant statement about Rosetta (launched before Deep Impact)!
  5. 16 August 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a paper that means that Comet Tempel 1 was softer than predicted
  6. 17 August 2017 Sol88: Ignorant fantasies and lies about Deep Impact and Tempel 1.
  7. 17 August 2017 Sol88: A link to his ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult.
  8. 17 August 2017 Sol88: His delusion that the craters are electric.
  9. 17 August 2017 Sol88: His delusion that "the central mound and the dark "ring" are signature of electrical scarring".
  10. 17 August 2017 Sol88: A "dark ring" lie (there is the light ring of the crater rim with a shadow).
  11. 17 August 2017 Sol88: Mindless parroting of Wal Thornhill's "double flash" & energy lies.
  12. 17 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of "that stopped the primary mission achieving its goal".
  13. 17 August 2017 Sol88: Delusions and lies about the Stardust-NExT image and MUPUS results.
  14. 17 August 2017 Sol88: Adds a delusion that Deep Impact hit "soft rock"
  15. 17 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about a prediction of the amount of dust and ices from Deep Impact hitting rock.
  16. 17 August 2015 Sol88: The delusion that "well consolidated terrain" means his comets are rocks delusion.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 07:20 PM   #180
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Exclamation Questions emphasizing the complete uselessness of the comets are rocks delusion

Questions with deafening silence emphasizing the complete uselessness of the comets are rocks delusion.
  1. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 11:26 PM   #181
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,178
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
It's not ROCK but it is Consolidated rocky-like material
Quote:
Maftet Rock-like
Bastet Rock-like
Serqet Rock-like
Hathor Rock-like
Anuket
Or as me old mate says
Quote:
(c) Whatarecometsmadeof? 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 rst 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]. N


So I don't know where the rock came from!

But there you have it!
__________________
"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 16th August 2017, 11:45 PM   #182
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,178
So what is the difference between CONSOLIDATED material, ROCK-like and ROCK, Reality Check?

Density? Composition?

please keep in mind the nucleus bulk density!
__________________
"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; 17th August 2017 at 01:25 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 17th August 2017, 04:30 AM   #183
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,178
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/09...rosettas-eyes/

Always interesting to discuss in relation to rock, well consolidated, rock-like material , take your pick but it'd do us all a favour buy calling it "rock"? You know, just for now.


https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.02794


Kinda similar on just a purely visual basis to Tempels 1's reatreating icy cliffs/powdery flows. Comet Tempel 1 90 seconds before impact. The image was taken by the targeting sensor on Deep Impact's impactor.

Or thuderdolts pseudo science mumbo jumbo...http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunder...15_se_teu7.htm

Interesting, that's all
__________________
"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; 17th August 2017 at 04:45 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 17th August 2017, 01:49 PM   #185
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Thumbs down Sol88: Smearing astronomers with his comets are rocks, etc delusions.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
It's not ROCK but it is Consolidated rocky-like material
18 August 2017 Sol88: Smearing astronomers with his comets are rocks, etc. delusions.
Astronomers know the observations of comets (dating from before 1950 ) that make 8 years of comets are rock. etc. posts into ignorant delusions.
Astronomers look at the formations that the ices and dust make in low gravity on comets and label some as "rock-like".

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th August 2017 at 01:51 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 02:00 PM   #186
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Thumbs down Sol8: Insults astronomers by linking them with his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So I don't know where the rock came from!
18 August 2017 Sol8: Insults astronomers by linking them with his ignorant comet delusions.
The question is about the comet delusions you have been mindless parroting for the last 8 years.
Questions with deafening silence emphasizing the complete uselessness of the comets are rocks delusion.
  1. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 02:04 PM   #187
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Question Sol88: What is your predicted composition of comets from their origins

18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted composition of comets from their origins?
This is
  • "your" as in you being a member of the Thunderbolts cult and so knowing what their comet dogma is.
  • "composition" as not a stupidly vague "rock".
    Take their origin for comets and state what the rock at the origin is comprised of.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 02:08 PM   #188
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Question Sol88: What is your predicted density of comets?

18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted density of comets?
8 years so you must know this!

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th August 2017 at 02:09 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 02:09 PM   #189
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Question Sol88: What is the measured density of comets

18 August 2017 Sol88: What is the measured density of comets?
8 years so you must know this!
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 02:18 PM   #190
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Question Sol88: State the physics that explains the density difference

18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted density of comets?
18 August 2017 Sol88: What is the measured density of comets?
If your predicted densities and the measured densities differ:
18 August 2017 Sol88: State the physics that explains the density difference showing that the measurements are matched.
No vague ignorant fantasies about electric magic. Read whatever you cite or risk the citation being called out as a lie.

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th August 2017 at 02:21 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 02:24 PM   #191
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Thumbs down Sol88: A display of ignorance to derail fro m his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So what ...
18 August 2017 Sol88: A display of ignorance of what he has read to derail from his comet delusions so will not be answered.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 02:26 PM   #192
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie about a Rosetta blog that is not abut his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
18 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about a Rosetta blog that is not about nor supports his comet delusions.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
18 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about a paper that is not about nor supports his comet delusions.
Temporal morphological changes in the Imhotep region of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

18 August 2017 Sol88: A link to his ignorant, deluded and lying Thunderbolts cult.
That is an extract from a Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott book with lies about Deep Impact thus Sol88 accuses David Talbott of being a liar like Wal Thornhill !

18 August 2017 Sol88: Wal Thornhill and David Talbott published lies about "correct" predictions for Depp Impact in a 2007 book.
For example, the flash before impact lie and the unexpected energy lie.

A reminder that the Thunderbolt cult that Sol88 mindlessly parrots is not just his comets are rocks delusion.

Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88)
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. [/quote]

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th August 2017 at 02:44 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 09:43 PM   #193
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,178
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So what is the difference between CONSOLIDATED material, ROCK-like and ROCK, Reality Check?

Density? Composition?

please keep in mind the nucleus bulk density!
So no coherent answer from Reality Check.
__________________
"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 18th August 2017, 02:49 PM   #194
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,736
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I don't know.

Same token, why do some asteroids show comas DD?
Because they are comets, not asteroids and they are made out of frozen volatilies not rock.

The EC hypothesis would say that Apollo objects should all show comas.
__________________
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 18th August 2017, 10:42 PM   #195
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,178
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Because they are comets, not asteroids and they are made out of frozen volatilies not rock.

The EC hypothesis would say that Apollo objects should all show comas.

Interesting!
__________________
"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 18th August 2017, 10:51 PM   #196
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,178
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Because they are comets, not asteroids and they are made out of frozen volatilies not rock.

The EC hypothesis would say that Apollo objects should all show comas.
Curiouser and curiouser

Quote:
3. DISCUSSION
Processes invoked to explain mass loss from asteroids include sublimation of near surface ice, electrostatic levitation of dust, impact, and rotational instability (Jewitt 2012). The orbit of P5 lies near the inner edge of the asteroid belt, in the vicinity of the Flora family of S-type asteroids. These objects have been associated with the LL chondrites, which themselves reflect metamorphism to temperatures ~800°C to 960°C (Keil 2000). As such, P5 is an unlikely carrier of water ice, and sublimation is unlikely to account for the observed activity. Neither is it likely that P5 could be a comet captured from the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud comet reservoirs; numerical simulations show that such capture is effectively impossible in the modern solar system (Fernández et al. 2002). Impact is another potential source of dust in the asteroid belt. However, the five month age spread of the dust tails (Table 3) and the absence of fading in the photometry (Table 2) both argue strongly against impact as a plausible explanation for the activity in P5.

The surviving hypothesis is that P5 is a body showing rotational mass-shedding, presumably from torques imposed by solar radiation.
??

What's your take DD? do you accept the surviving hypothesis? Or would you be willing to entertain alternative hypotheses?


Tell what I'd put my money on, Electrostatic forces on grains near asteroids and comets Christine Hartzell and Dylan Carter


Quote:
In addition to cohesion, grains on small bodies will be influenced by electrostatic forces. Asteroids typically do not have magnetic fields. Thus, the surface of an asteroid interacts directly with the solar wind plasma and the solar UV radiation. The solar wind plasma tends to charge surfaces negatively. However, the solar UV radiation causes the regolith to photoemit, producing a net positive charge on the day-lit surfaces of the asteroid. The positively charged surface attracts electrons, resulting in a region of increased electron density near the surface called the plasma sheath. The plasma sheath serves to shield the charged asteroid surface from the free-stream plasma that has an electric potential of zero. Plasma sheaths are frequently studied experimentally in a variety of plasma physics applications. The charge separation in the plasma e-mail: hartzell@umd.edu sheath causes an electric field, which points away from the surface on the day-side [2, 3]. On the night side, there is a plasma wake due to the higher mass of the ions than the electrons, which also causes an electric field [4]. The plasma environment has been measured at the Moon by the ARTEMIS mission and at comet ChuryumovGerasimenko by the ROSETTA mission, however, these measurements have been confined to regions outside of the near-surface plasma sheath.
You could always ask the expert, Tusenfem, on plasma sheaths or even 'double layers'!
__________________
"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; 18th August 2017 at 11:18 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 19th August 2017, 02:32 PM   #197
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,064
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You could always ask the expert, Tusenfem, on plasma sheaths or even 'double layers'!
HUH?
Can anyone give me a summary what this discussion is about?
__________________
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 20th August 2017, 08:56 AM   #198
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,736
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
But what they did find was wow how long do you have to go to university to work that out!
Come up noth sometime during a cold winter and try drilling through ice at sub zero temperatures.

You denial and ignorance are showing, same tired old blather.

It has been shown in prior threads that sub zero ice (water ice) can be as hard as hard rock
__________________
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 20th August 2017, 08:58 AM   #199
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,736
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So how does the h2o, co2, co gas sublimating under a very good thermally insulating dust granular layer to do its thing thru something as hard as rock ice?
Easy, ice can be as hard as rock and sublimate, you have been down this road before.

Why can't you actually show that comets carry an electrical charge sufficient to create a coma?

That would win the Nobel prize.
__________________
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 20th August 2017, 02:24 PM   #200
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,740
Thumbs down Sol88: I did not answer an ignorant and deluded derail

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So no coherent answer from Reality Check.:
21 August 2017 Sol88: I did not answer an ignorant and deluded derail.
But since you insist on documenting even more ignorance and delusions about comets I will answer.
  • Consolidated material is ices and dust collecting under gravitation with cohesive forces keeping them together.
  • The description "rock-like" is the visual appearance of ices and dust collected in consolidated materials on comets.
  • Sol88's 8 year long delusions of comets are rock, etc. raises their inane head yet again.
21 August 2017 Sol88: Mentions "nucleus bulk density" that shows how completly insane the comets are rock, etc. delusions are!
The nucleus bulk density of comets is less than that of water as measured for over 60 years as Sol88 knows !
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 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 07:31 PM.
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.