Sol88
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 8,437
So your response to people presenting science at a conference is to insult them and the science, Sol88!
Insult??? what your inteligence?? sorry mate, shall we speak slower and use little words?
So your response to people presenting science at a conference is to insult them and the science, Sol88!
I have a feeling that we are going to see lots of idiotic comments on the Thunderbolts web site from electric comet proponents after the end of the converafernce, Sol88. Which you and Haig will probably blindly parrot here. They willI have a feeling we are going to have lots to discuss by the end of the week.
I have a feeling that we are going to see lots of idiotic comments on the Thunderbolts web site from electric comet proponents after the end of the converafernce, Sol88. Which you and Haig will probably blindly parrot here. They will
- take every mention of electromagnetism as support for the dumb idea that comets are rock.
- think that any unknowns are support for the invalid electric comet idea, i.e. God of the gaps argument.
- think that anything they do not understand is support for the invalid electric comet idea (argument from ignorance).
- think that anything that the scientific model does not explain is support for the invalid electric comet idea (fallacy of false dichotomy).
Abstract
Although the Moon and asteroids are often thought of as having relatively dormant environments, in fact the Moon at least is very electrically active. The surfaces of airless bodies are directly exposed to solar UV and X-rays, as well as solar wind plasma and energetic particles. This bombardment creates a complex electric field and plasma environment, with the surface typically charging positive in sunlight and negative in shadow, and surface potentials varying over orders of magnitude in response to changing solar illumination and plasma conditions. We present the first efforts to derive the exact magnitude of the nightside lunar surface electric potential from orbit (which involves correcting for spacecraft charging effects), rather than the lower limits which have been derived before. We then compare these measurements to simple theoretical models and other predictions for lunar surface charging in shadow during quiet times. In addition, we present a complete survey of lunar surface charging (utilizing data from Apollo surface observations and Lunar Prospector orbital observations, in concert with theory and modeling) for all lunar locations and solar and plasma conditions, in order to demonstrate the wide range of charging conditions that can occur on airless bodies. By validating surface charging models for the Moon, we can gain confidence in the application of these models to other airless bodies such as asteroids, moons, and Mercury. It is important to have confidence in these theoretical tools, so we can apply them to problems such as dust levitation and transport - which may be of fundamental importance
And the response to my post is to question my intelligence, Sol88Insult??? what your inteligence?? sorry mate, shall we speak slower and use little words?
The insult to the scientists is "make up": Trusting a scientific theory such as the comet model without credible evidence is not what competent scientist (or rational people for that matter!) do.[Will they say the mainstream model is DEAD or make up more male bovine excrement.
Soll88, Please read what you quote:
I have a feeling that we are going to see lots of idiotic comments on the Thunderbolts web site from electric comet proponents after the end of the converafernce, Sol88. Which you and Haig will probably blindly parrot here. They will
- take every mention of electromagnetism as support for the dumb idea that comets are rock.
- think that any unknowns are support for the invalid electric comet idea, i.e. God of the gaps argument.
- think that anything they do not understand is support for the invalid electric comet idea (argument from ignorance).
- think that anything that the scientific model does not explain is support for the invalid electric comet idea (fallacy of false dichotomy).
and how this applies to the standard mainstream theory of asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objectsAlthough the Moon and asteroids are often thought of as having relatively dormant environments, in fact the Moon at least is very electrically active. The surfaces of airless bodies are directly exposed to solar UV and X-rays, as well as solar wind plasma and energetic particles. This bombardment creates a complex electric field and plasma environment, with the surface typically charging positive in sunlight and negative in shadow, and surface potentials varying over orders of magnitude in response to changing solar illumination and plasma conditions. We present the first efforts to derive the exact magnitude of the nightside lunar surface electric potential from orbit (which involves correcting for spacecraft charging effects), rather than the lower limits which have been derived before. We then compare these measurements to simple theoretical models and other predictions for lunar surface charging in shadow during quiet times. In addition, we present a complete survey of lunar surface charging (utilizing data from Apollo surface observations and Lunar Prospector orbital observations, in concert with theory and modeling) for all lunar locations and solar and plasma conditions, in order to demonstrate the wide range of charging conditions that can occur on airless bodies. By validating surface charging models for the Moon, we can gain confidence in the application of these models to other airless bodies such as asteroids, moons, and Mercury. It is important to have confidence in these theoretical tools, so we can apply them to problems such as dust levitation and transport - which may be of fundamental importance both at the Moon and on asteroids.
And the response to my post is to question my intelligence, Sol88!
Read what you wrote
The insult to the scientists is "make up": Trusting a scientific theory such as the comet model without credible evidence is not what competent scientist (or rational people for that matter!) do.
The insult to the science is "male bovine excrement".
Soll88, Please read what you quote:
Please read Surface Charging on Airless Bodies
and how this applies to the standard mainstream theory of asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objects!
No one knows whether this relatively new analysis (2007) may or may not apply to comets. There are hints - the ice and dust "dunes" on 67P suggest some form of ice and dust movement.
as much as I fail to understand why mainstream are so reluctant to embrace EM as the dominate force in the Universe...
"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems." Hannes Alfven
Gezz Belz, what straight question? This thread has gone nuts with RC spamming the board !Haig, are you going to ever answer my straight questions ?
This is first in a series of Rosetta Mission Updates with Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbott. In this brief video, Wal offers a preliminary assessment of the Rosetta Mission to Comet 67P
Wow - way still not to understand what you read Sol88and how this applies to the standard mainstream thery of asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objects!
!For them, water must always be "carried" or "brought"--but this is a perpetual loop conundrum for them: What brought the water to the comets and asteroids?
Therefore the theory is not believable. It is further not believable when considering that myriad celestial bodies have known water on them such as Enceladus and Europa, others. So, again, what brought their water? And how can tiny rocks magically seed every planet and icy moon?
Where is the mechanism for this and where is the evidence for this massive bombardment activity? But there is a deeper conundrum: Why did the trillions of comets and asteroids discriminate with Europa, missing Ganymede? Did they have a group meeting and decide to not visit Io either? Why did the rock swarm gang up on poor Enceladus but not want to visit Iapetus?
Gezz, Haig:Gezz Belz, what straight question? ...snipped usual Thunderbolts delusions...
Rock comets are asteroids within the orbit of Mercury having dust blown off of them.I'm sorry: what do rock comets have to do with the electric universe model ? Your quote does not answer that question.
Apparently you are content to parrot Thunderbolts ignorance and delusions, Haig....usual Thunderbolts delusions snipped
There only ice and dust on comets and so any dunes have to be made up of ice and dust, Sol88Ice dunes?
Gezz Belz, what straight question?
It turns out to be a web page pointing to fantasies, delusions and lies in a Thunderbolts video, Haig.It's ALL about evidence ... and here ...
Rosetta Mission Update | The Rocky Comet
There only ice and dust on comets and so any dunes have to be made up of ice and dust, Sol88.
Of course as anyone who has ever been in show and seen similar patterns knows, this is "wind blown" ice particles and dust particles that have formed dunes.
on wind, ionic wind, coronal wind or electric wind are expressions formerly used to describe the resulting localized neutral flow induced by electrostatic forces linked to corona discharge arising at the tips of some sharp conductors (such as points or blades) submitted to high-voltages relative to ground. Modern implementations belong to the family of electrohydrodynamic (EHD) devices.
That dog must be laughing at your lack of cursory research skills.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_dune