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 12th September 2017, 08:36 PM   #322
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,719
Exclamation Questions with deafening silence = uselessness of EC delusions

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?
  2. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted composition of comets from their origins?
  3. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted density of comets?
  4. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is the measured density of comets?
  5. 18 August 2017 Sol88: State the physics that explains any density difference showing that the measurements are matched.
  6. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all main-belt asteroids not comets according to your comet delusions?
  7. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all asteroids with cometary obits not comets as in your comet delusions?
  8. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Why does comet dust not match planetary rock or asteroid composition?
  9. 23 August 2017 Sol88: What is your evidence that comets were blasted from planets such as the Earth?
  10. 28 August 2017 Sol88: What is your prediction for the "water produced per surface area of nucleus" on Hartley 2?
No honesty yet:
4 September 2017 Sol88: Are you not honest enough to acknowledge the Thunderbolts comet origins?

Electric comets still do not exist!
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 12th September 2017, 08:43 PM   #324
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
13 September 2017 Sol88: A lie of dust being ejected electrically as in his comet delusions.
Nothing he has cited states that the dust is ejected by delusions of electrical discharges on comets.
Nothing he has cited states that the dust is ejected by delusions of the Sun having a physically significant electric field.
Nothing he has cited even states that the dust has been found to be ejected by anything electrical.
Wheel this baby out again, ay!

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity


Quote:
Highlights



We model surface charging of the 67P nucleus during periods of low activity.


We include a treatment of the cometary plasma wake using a self-similar approach.


Criteria for electrostatic levitation and ejection of submicron grains are presented.


Charged nanodust flux detectable by the RPC–IES instrument on-board Rosetta.

Abstract

We have investigated through simulation the electrostatic charging of the nucleus of Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko during periods of weak outgassing activity. Specifically, we have modeled the surface potential and electric field at the surface of the nucleus during the initial Rosetta rendezvous at 3.5 AU and the release of the Philae lander at 3 AU. We have also investigated the possibility of dust acceleration and ejection above the nucleus due to electrostatic forces. Finally, we discuss these modeling results in the context of possible observations by instruments on both the Rosetta orbiter and the Philae lander.

SIMULATION OF THE ELECTROSTATIC CHARGING OF PHILAE ON
67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO AND OF ITS INTERACTION WITH THE
DUSTS.

S. L. G. Hess1, P. Sarrailh1, J.-C. Mateo-Velez1, J. Forest2, B. Jeanty-Ruard2 and F. Cipriani3

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 dierentially 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 dierent
distances from the sun to observe the variation of the dust collection with Philae's local time.


Why would those CRANKS say something so stupid Reality Check? [sarcasm] are they also a part of the the THUNDERBOLTS mob?[/sarcasm] just so RC doesent get all confused.
__________________
"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; 12th September 2017 at 09:21 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 08:44 PM   #325
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
13 September 2017 Sol88: Gibberish and lies (no evidence for his comet delusions, mainstream comet model works, "jets" lie, we know how jets work).
Care to back it up with a 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]

Last edited by Sol88; 12th September 2017 at 08:47 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 12th September 2017, 11:02 PM   #326
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
It has been proposed that strong multipole electric fields may occur at sunlight-shadow boundaries due to high energy (~50 to 500 eV) photoelectrons emitted from sunlit areas subsequently striking adjacent shadowed regions (Criswell and De, 1977; De and Criswell, 1977). At centimeter-sized spatial scales, De and Criswell (1977) have shown that local electric fields in excess of 2ev/cm may be generated across adjacent sunlit and shadowed regions. Strong small-scale electric fields on the order of ~100 to 1000 V/cm could therefore exist in regions near the terminators and at local sunlit-shadow boundaries on planetary objects of low resistivity. In the case of a rotating body, Lee (1996) has shown that the terminator crossing time (and thus time available for charging) is a possible constraint for this process. However, for a relatively slowly rotating body like the 67P nucleus, with a rotational period of ~12 h, this does not preclude such levels of charging from occurring. Shadowing due to the topography of the 67P nucleus may therefore be associated with strong electric fields on the order of ~100–1000 V/cm over centimeter scales. Such locally enhanced electric fields may lead to increased rates of electrostatic dust ejection and possibly also to motion of charged grains across shadow boundaries due to strong local electric field gradients. While such illumination conditions are certainly present near the terminators, imaging of the 67P nucleus has revealed an object with rugged small-scale topography (Thomas et al., 2015). Thus, we may also expect to see similarly enhanced local small scale electric fields due to shadowing from boulders, escarpments and crater rims.
Quote:
Here we assume that the acceleration due to gas drag on the nanograin particles is negligible compared to that of electrostatic forces, and thus the kinetic energy of the charged nanograins should reflect the surface potential at the region of the nucleus from which they are emitted (e.g. Szego et al., 2014).
Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity

Mmmmmmmm.....Where do we see the "jets" mainly?

The dust being dragged out by gas drag is negligible??

Well according Yu. V. Skorov1, L. Rezac1, P. Hartogh1 and H. U. Keller2, it's a complete non starter!

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.
__________________
"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 12th September 2017, 11:13 PM   #327
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
Evidence of Electrical Activity on Comet 67P: Towards an Electrochemical Framework for Cometary Phenomena

Quote:
It is clear that the correlation of relative abundances between O2 and H2O indicates a single origin and release mechanism. The question is: which mechanism? I propose a mechanism that allows for the simultaneous formation of O2 and H2O, where the driving force is a voltage differential, such as an electrochemical method. There is plenty of evidence of the presence of filamentary electric fields accelerating electrons and ions in the vicinity of the nucleus, leading to charge separation, as has been demonstrated throughout these episodes. I called this mechanism:

O2 and H2O formation by electrochemical means – In this method, O2, O2-, OH, -OH, and other chemical species are released into the coma by various mechanisms, such as “electron-stripping,” solar wind sputtering, and solar heating. In this context, O2 can absorb a negative charged through charge exchange due to demonstrated high electron densities in the vicinity of the nucleus, followed up by protonation via the solar wind. Subsequently, water can then be formed via at least two pathways linking O2 and H2O formation:

(1) O2 + H → H2O
(2) O2- + H+ → H2O

In this theoretical framework whereby the driving force is a voltage differential in the vicinity of the nucleus, the instantaneous O2 formation reaction that was deemed unfeasible becomes feasible when looked at from an electrochemical perspective as the reaction can occur directly via gas phase collisions or be mediated via silicate catalysis on nanograin surfaces. In a general perspective, a voltage-driven chemical reaction mechanism looks promising as it can explain the formation of complex chemical species, such as water, alcohols, sugar, [14] cyanide polymeric chains, amino acids, and others, with satisfaction without the thermodynamic constraint of low temperatures-driven collisions.
Quote:
Shadowing due to the topography of the 67P nucleus may therefore be associated with strong electric fields on the order of ~100–1000 V/cm over centimeter scales
Seems there may be enough grunt to do the "work" required.


Coincidental that jets are seen to occur in the boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas? or linked?
__________________
"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; 12th September 2017 at 11:16 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 13th September 2017, 01:51 PM   #328
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,719
Thumbs down Sol88: A repeated lie of dust being ejected electrically as in his comet delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Idiocy and a lie in this post.
14 September 2017 Sol88: A repeated lie of dust being ejected electrically as in his comet delusions [by electrical discharges between the comet and Sun].
14 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing an electrostatic dust acceleration paper about mainstream comets made of ices and dust
14 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing an electrostatic charging paper about mainstream comets made of ices and dust
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 13th September 2017, 01:53 PM   #329
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,719
Thumbs down Sol88: Lies again about there being no links

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Care to back it up with a link?
14 September 2017 Sol88: Lies again about there being no links.
One last time:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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 13th September 2017, 02:15 PM   #330
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,719
Thumbs down Sol88: Usual mindless parroting of the ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Seems there may be enough grunt to do the "work" required.
14 September 2017 Sol88: Usual mindless parroting of the ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult that has been already addressed.

This is the electrochemist Franklin Anariba being ignorant and deluded (blogging on Thunderbolts!) about 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 13th September 2017, 02:27 PM   #331
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,719
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie about his comet delusions which do not include this jets fantasy

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Coincidental that jets are seen to occur in the boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas? or linked?
Not coincidental that this is more les:
14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie about his comet delusions which do not include jets happen in the "boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".
His cometary jets delusion is that jets are electrical discharges between the comet and the Sun. That means jets can only happen on high points of the lit areas.

14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because he knows that the actual location of jets is part of what makes his comet ideas into delusions.
Jets issue from the neck of 67P which is the lowest part of the comet.
Jets issue from inside pits.
Jets issue from fissured cliff faces.
Jets issue from the back, dark side of 67P which is the furthest part of the comet from the Sun.

14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because the ignorant and deluded page he cites is not about comet jets.

14 September 2017 Sol88: Maybe a lie because he does not cite any observations of jets "seen to occur in the boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".

Last edited by Reality Check; 13th September 2017 at 02:32 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 13th September 2017, 02:45 PM   #332
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,719
Question Sol88: Cite the observations from comet jets of narrow band x-rays bursts

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?
  2. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted composition of comets from their origins?
  3. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted density of comets?
  4. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is the measured density of comets?
  5. 18 August 2017 Sol88: State the physics that explains any density difference showing that the measurements are matched.
  6. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all main-belt asteroids not comets according to your comet delusions?
  7. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all asteroids with cometary obits not comets as in your comet delusions?
  8. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Why does comet dust not match planetary rock or asteroid composition?
  9. 23 August 2017 Sol88: What is your evidence that comets were blasted from planets such as the Earth?
  10. 28 August 2017 Sol88: What is your prediction for the "water produced per surface area of nucleus" on Hartley 2?
No honesty yet:
4 September 2017 Sol88: Are you not honest enough to acknowledge the Thunderbolts comet origins?

Delusions about comet jets are being regurgitated so:
14 September 2017 Sol88: Cite the observations from comet jets of narrow band x-rays bursts that electrical discharges emit.

Electric comets still do not exist!

Last edited by Reality Check; 13th September 2017 at 02:48 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 13th September 2017, 05:08 PM   #333
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Not coincidental that this is more les:
14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie about his comet delusions which do not include jets happen in the "boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".
His cometary jets delusion is that jets are electrical discharges between the comet and the Sun. That means jets can only happen on high points of the lit areas.

14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because he knows that the actual location of jets is part of what makes his comet ideas into delusions.
Jets issue from the neck of 67P which is the lowest part of the comet.
Jets issue from inside pits.
Jets issue from fissured cliff faces.
Jets issue from the back, dark side of 67P which is the furthest part of the comet from the Sun.

14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because the ignorant and deluded page he cites is not about comet jets.

14 September 2017 Sol88: Maybe a lie because he does not cite any observations of jets "seen to occur in the boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".
Oh dear.
__________________
"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 13th September 2017, 05:16 PM   #334
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,719
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Oh dear.
3 or maybe 4 lies packed into one rather short post is something you should not repeat. Not that will happen given 254 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 23 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

Last edited by Reality Check; 13th September 2017 at 05:30 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 14th September 2017, 11:52 PM   #335
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,057
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Seems there may be enough grunt to do the "work" required.
The grunt is on Thunderdolts, as the obviously have not understood Ingo's paper. This comment:

Originally Posted by TD
The authors discard the classical pick up ion instabilities as the source of the magnetic oscillations and instead propose that photoionized ions move transverse to the magnetic field but along the solar wind, which flows in the direction of the electric field, in what is called a cross-field electric current density. In other words, the electric fields control cometary ion motion but in a different way from the known mass loading action.
makes no sense, as the mass loading IS happening exactly as in the "known mass loading action", but the gyro radius of the new ions is so large that in the neighbourhood of the comet the ions can be assumed to travel in a straight line, the same way you don't take into account the curvature of the Earth when you are working in your garden.

And electric fields, that is, the motional or convective electric fields, created by the moving magnetic field of the solar wind still work the same as they used to in the pick-up and mass-loading process.

No use to read any further.
__________________
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 15th September 2017, 01:47 AM   #336
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Shadowing due to the topography of the 67P nucleus may therefore be associated with strong electric fields on the order of ~100–1000 V/cm over centimeter scales. Such locally enhanced electric fields may lead to increased rates of electrostatic dust ejection and possibly also to motion of charged grains across shadow boundaries due to strong local electric field gradients.
Can this happen, Tusenfem?
__________________
"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 15th September 2017, 02:25 AM   #337
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
Any movement on your tail excursion paper?

Keen as to read 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 15th September 2017, 03:01 AM   #338
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,057
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Can this happen, Tusenfem?
Tom's simulations and estimates by others seem to indicate the possibility of such fields here.

Whether or not they actually occur on the surface of 67P is another question.
__________________
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 15th September 2017, 03:24 AM   #339
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
Devils advocate,

Say they do happen (small scale strong electric fields) what then for the interpretation of what dust 'jets' are and how they operate?

I.e is gas drag necessary?
__________________
"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 15th September 2017, 12:14 PM   #340
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,057
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Devils advocate,

Say they do happen (small scale strong electric fields) what then for the interpretation of what dust 'jets' are and how they operate?

I.e is gas drag necessary?
no, because it is observed that the dust is accelerated over 30 km, so strong fields over cms near the surface cannot lead to the observations
__________________
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 15th September 2017, 03:34 PM   #341
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
Well there seems to be strong evidence of those same fields accelerating electrons to high energies...

Quote:
Which processes account for the density (and ux) enhancements that IES observes are not obvious, but may involve the ambipolar electric eld and/or a local compression in the ow. The ambipolar electric eld is proportional to the electron pressure gradient and is required to maintain quasi-neutrality with signicant ion densities being produced by photoionization (e.g. Cravens, in prep.). Any mechanism (e.g., electrostatic elds) must have some degree of structure to account for the large variations in the energies and uxes seen on short time-scales. The observed VDFs show no evidence of a clear peak (a maximum with positive and negative slopes on either side) in phase space, either. This typically is a distribution that has a at top or broad shoulder and rolls off with increasing energy. If a well-structured electric eld were present, then a well-dened peak would be expected. Again, this points to ne structure in the plasma environment. It might likewise be important that comet 67P is dominated by kinetic processes.
Suprathermal electron environment of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: Observations from the Rosetta Ion and Electron Sensor

Sorry but the board seems to cutting the fl out of the copy and paste


And that same plasma is coupled to the rest by, as you said,
Quote:
11 And thus it ends The complex interaction between a time variable solar wind and an outgassing cometary nucleus gives rise to a whole zoo of interesting plasma phenomena. Unfortunately, a sizelimited review paper cannot discuss everything in full detail, but for the interested reader there is an extensive literature list in the references.
Currents in Cometary Comae

Whole zoo of interesting plasma phenomena? Please, do tell more to this ignorant sob.

Pretty much the ELECTRIC COMET right there, it's got it 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; 15th September 2017 at 03:40 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 15th September 2017, 03:43 PM   #342
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
no, because it is observed that the dust is accelerated over 30 km, so strong fields over cms near the surface cannot lead to the observations
Maybe not but the fields are strong enough to get the process started!

And so there must be a large scale electric field as well , no?
__________________
"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 15th September 2017, 09:27 PM   #343
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
no, because it is observed that the dust is accelerated over 30 km, so strong fields over cms near the surface cannot lead to the observations
What could it lead to?

The paper seems pretty clear.
__________________
"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 September 2017, 01:52 AM   #344
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Lest we forget (and I can't be bothered with refs, because they've been done soooo many times);
The comet isn't rock (MIRO, CONSERT, plus orbital measurements, plus the 9P impact).
There IS H2O, as has been well known since 1985 (KAO), plus umpteen other detections.
There is no electric woo. As (not) measured. As per, for instance, the diamagnetic cavity at 1P and 67P. No magnetic field = (fill in as necessary).

To finish, without writing 5000 words, the electric comet woo has been shown to be total woo, as expected, by numerous missions to comets, as well as distant observations of such. It is nonsense. It is cretinous nonsense, in fact. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-idiotic idea. It has gone to meet the choir invisible. It is an ex idea.
Goodnight Polly. Bye bye David. Tata Wal. Try better next time. Loons.
Seems you're wrong, again, according to the mainstream 'experts'!

The 'dirtysnowball' is dead and it's time for a new model
Quote:
11 CONCLUSIONS The classical model of comets as dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950)has focused most models of comets on ices. The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear. With 67P’s dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside.
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

What will it be 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; 16th September 2017 at 02:00 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 16th September 2017, 04:56 AM   #345
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,057
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well there seems to be strong evidence of those same fields accelerating electrons to high energies...
those are hardly the same electric fields
__________________
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 16th September 2017, 05:03 AM   #346
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,057
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The 'dirtysnowball' is dead and it's time for a new model Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view
Whipple never saw a comet up close in the 50s of the last century.
Ofcourse, after the first picture of a cometary nucleus, it became clear that Whipple's model needed to be modified, and with every successful mission to comets we learn more, which is exactly what Fulle et al. are writing.

It is just YOU who is keeping on insisting that the mainstream model is Whipples dirty snowball. Yes, it keeps on being used in popular literature, it is hard to get rid of terms that have taken foothold but don't describe reality, just think about the term "big bang" which was used to ridicule the theory.
__________________
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 17th September 2017, 01:11 AM   #347
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
but it's the only model available to the mainstream! And it's wrong. Trying to fit the data to that model (the dirty Snowball) has led to some pretty wild claims!

So where does that leave us?
__________________
"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 17th September 2017, 01:15 AM   #348
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
The larger the dust-to-water ratio, the larger the porosity required to fit the observed nucleus bulk density. The RSI (Pätzold et al. 2016) and the CONSERT (Kofman et al. 2015) experiments exclude macro-porosity at scales above 100 m. CONSERT experiment provides a micro-porosity between 75 per cent and 85 per cent (Kofman et al. 2015). Hapke models provide a surface porosity of 87 per cent (Fornasier et al. 2015)
There's the mainstreams BIGGEST Problem!
__________________
"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 17th September 2017, 01:30 AM   #349
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,164
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Whipple never saw a comet up close in the 50s of the last century.
Ofcourse, after the first picture of a cometary nucleus, it became clear that Whipple's model needed to be modified, and with every successful mission to comets we learn more, which is exactly what Fulle et al. are writing.

It is just YOU who is keeping on insisting that the mainstream model is Whipples dirty snowball. Yes, it keeps on being used in popular literature, it is hard to get rid of terms that have taken foothold but don't describe reality, just think about the term "big bang" which was used to ridicule the theory.
Not just me 'Ol mate, most of your peers as well.

e.g
Quote:
Comets are primitive objects with a composition that has barely changed in 4.6Gyr. As such, they likely hold important clues on the youth and evolution of the solar system.
Quote:
Comets are among the oldest objects in our Solar system, and represent the remnant materials from which all the outer planets and moons were constructed. Analysing cometary materials in situ can reveal some of these events by constraining the origin of the solid protoplanetary materials and the processes by which all larger bodies grew.
All stated as FACT!

When in reality the mainstream had no idea
__________________
"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 17th September 2017, 07:10 AM   #350
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,057
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
but it's the only model available to the mainstream! And it's wrong. Trying to fit the data to that model (the dirty Snowball) has led to some pretty wild claims!

So where does that leave us?
ONLY IN YOUR MIND!

Read up on some real papers, don't be stuck in the 1950s
__________________
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 17th September 2017, 07:13 AM   #351
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,057
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Not just me 'Ol mate, most of your peers as well.
All stated as FACT!
When in reality the mainstream had no idea
AND NONE OF THESE QUOTES STATE THAT COMETS ARE DIRTY SNOWBALLS; OR ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF READING COMPREHENSIVELY?????????????
__________________
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 17th September 2017, 08:03 AM   #352
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
but it's the only model available to the mainstream! And it's wrong. Trying to fit the data to that model (the dirty Snowball) has led to some pretty wild claims!

So where does that leave us?

Watching a very boring movie called The Neverending Strawman.
__________________
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 17th September 2017, 08:38 AM   #353
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,004
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
AND NONE OF THESE QUOTES STATE THAT COMETS ARE DIRTY SNOWBALLS; OR ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF READING COMPREHENSIVELY?????????????
His most compelling arguments are composed of emoticons and he pushes a scientific view that, if correct, would mean > 90% of our electronic equipment would be unable to function. Using electronic equipment.

I'd say that answers that question right there.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 September 2017, 02:01 PM   #354
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,719
Thumbs down Sol88: Idiocy of citing a suprathermal electron paper that is not about his delusions

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well there seems to be strong evidence of those same fields accelerating electrons to high energies...
18 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing a suprathermal electron paper that is not about his comet delusions.

18 September 2017 Sol88: Lies about the paper he cites which is not about his comet delusions.
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 17th September 2017, 02:10 PM   #355
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,719
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead"

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The 'dirtysnowball' is dead ...
18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead" followed by the idiocy of his ignorant delusions about comets are a model!
What he quotes is, does not cite and lies about is
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view
Quote:
11 CONCLUSIONS The classical model of comets as dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950) has focused most models of comets on ices. The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear. With 67P’s dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside.
This is that the classical model of comets as dirty ice balls meant that astronomers concentrated on the ice part of comets made of ice and dust. The example of 67P with a high ratio of dust makes models with high ratios of dust more important - Duh !
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 17th September 2017, 02:15 PM   #356
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,719
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie that Whipple's 1950 model is the only mainstream model

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
but it's the only model available to the mainstream!
18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie that Whipple's 1950 model is the only mainstream model.
Of the last 70 years models of comet with various amounts of ices and dust have been used. That is what the paper he quoted is taking about !
18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead" followed by the idiocy of his ignorant delusions about comets are a model!

18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie that Whipple's 1950 model is wrong - it is applicable to comets that are more ice than dust as in the 1950's observsions.
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 17th September 2017, 02:30 PM   #357
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,719
Thumbs down Sol88: The idiocy of not knowing the meaning of surface and bulk is his problem

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
There's the mainstreams BIGGEST Problem!
18 September 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of not knowing the meaning of surface and bulk is his problem, not the mainstreams.
What he quotes is
Quote:
The larger the dust-to-water ratio, the larger the porosity required to fit the observed nucleus bulk density. The RSI (Pätzold et al. 2016) and the CONSERT (Kofman et al. 2015) experiments exclude macro-porosity at scales above 100 m. CONSERT experiment provides a micro-porosity between 75 per cent and 85 per cent (Kofman et al. 2015). Hapke models provide a surface porosity of 87 per cent (Fornasier et al. 2015)
This is
  1. No voids (macro-porosity) bigger than 100 m
  2. A bulk porosity "between 75 per cent and 85 per cent".
    Properties of the 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko interior revealed by CONSERT radar
  3. A surface porosity of 87 per cent.

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th September 2017 at 02:37 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 17th September 2017, 02:36 PM   #358
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,719
Thumbs down Sol88: Unsourced quotes that he lies about

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
All stated as FACT!
18 September 2017 Sol88: Unsourced quotes that he lies about.

For others:
The mainstream has centuries of observations of comets especially in the last 100 years and in the just completed Rosetta mission to Comet 67P. These have shown that comets are made of ices and dust and originate in the outer solar system (1000's of AU away for long period comets). The only way that they could have formed is along with the rest of the Solar System. This is a body of evidence that makes the origin of comets not FACT but enormously supported.

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th September 2017 at 02:44 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 17th September 2017, 05:27 PM   #359
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 873
Does the current mainstream model have a name? Perhaps that's the problem: the old model has a pithy name while the current model is nameless.
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline 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 September 2017, 07:33 PM   #360
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,719
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
Does the current mainstream model have a name? Perhaps that's the problem: the old model has a pithy name while the current model is nameless.
The name has not changed - it is still the "dirty snowball" or Whipple's model.
Some comets are better described as "icy dirtballs".
Some comets are better described as "deep fried ice cream".

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th September 2017 at 07:57 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 07:48 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.