jonesdave116
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,222
Yes. Science is not your strong point, old boy. Stick to petroglyphs.
Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)
- Thread starter Sol88
- Start date
- Status
Yes. Science is not your strong point, old boy. Stick to petroglyphs.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
And you write delusions about imaginary double layers yet again, Sol88.
11 August 2015 Sol88: Please provide the evidence for your fantasy about double layers around comets.
But what else can we expect from you?
A believer of Velikovsky's delusion that planets zoomed around the Solar System to explain various myths in recent times has already discarded all they know about high school level science and seems prepared to lie about images (red circles = electrical discharges!).
A repeated lie about no surface ice being found on comets.
57 days and counting of being afraid of doing simple 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.
Last edited:
jonesdave116
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,222
<snip>
It is a non-argument, idea, hypothesis, (whatever you want to call it) with zero evidence. Thornhill is an idiot who wouldn't know a comet if it hit him on the back of the head, and neither would his sidekick.
How many predictions so far? How many right? Zero.
It is a scientifically illiterate bunch of garbage with not an iota of evidence to back it up.
Unless one of its idiotic proponents would like to get on here and argue otherwise?
Still batting zero, chaps. This mission really isn't going well for the electric nutter crowd, is it?
Edited by Loss Leader:
Edited for Rule 12
Last edited by a moderator:
jonesdave116
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,222
Wrong. In so many ways. Stick to petroglyphs, science really isn't your thing. While you're at it, look up 'diamagnetic cavity'; no solar wind. No electric currents. End of. Dead. Unarguable (if you can do science).
Give it up, and return to the thunderdolts forum, where your idiotic, evidence free beliefs might actually get some notice.
Unless you actually have some evidence?
Matthew Cline
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2009
- Messages
- 897
To play devil's advocate: couldn't there be an arrangement of currents such that their magnetic fields cancel each other out, similar to noise cancellation?
You need to educate yourself on D/L's before spouting off
Spot on !
Enhanced diamagnetic perturbations and electric currents observed
downstream of the high power helicon
Compare the properties of the diamagnetic cavity to the properties of the double layer in these two pdf's ...
The Role Of Current-Free Double-Layers In Plasma Propulsion
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
No the electric field that the newborn ions feel is the motional electric field of the solar wind: E = - v x B, that is not a double layer.
I would not be surprised if you are misreading the paper, as you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about space plasma physics.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
No, that cannot be, because two things are being mixed up here.
The singing comet happened at the beginning of the mission, when the outgassing was at a low level and the magnetic field around the comet was still weak. That is what the published paper by Richter et al. is about. The singing has slowly petered out (as can be read in the blog).
The diamagnetic cavity is something that started to happen a few weeks ago, at a strongly outgassing comet and a much stronger magnetic field. The instability that created the singing is no longer present, because the characteristics of the magnetoplasma around the comet are not favourable for it anymore.
As you can see from the blog on the diamagnetic cavity, during an outburst on the comet the increase in neutral gas sent into space from the comet was so much that the collisions of the neutrals with the incoming solar wind was so much that the solar wind was actually stopped and its magnetic field pushed back to way past the spacecraft (and returning again as can be seen in the mag data that Charlotte showed).
Please do not make things confused by mixing to completely different phenomena at 67P/CG.
Last edited:
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
Although there can maybe be diamagnetic perturbations in a "high power helicon", this has nothing to do with the diamagnetic cavity around a comet. The diamagnetic cavity is mainly created by collisions of neutrals with solar wind ions, not by some high power plasma source.
But be my guest, and explain it to us: "Compare the properties of the diamagnetic cavity to the properties of the double layer "
I am all ears.
Bold of you to discount current-free double layers (CFDLs) around comets tusenfem
More CFDLs are being discovered in the space plasma of our solar system all the time now
Current-free double layers: A review
The Current-Free Electric Double Layer in a Coronal Magnetic Funnel
Physical mechanism of current-free double layers
You claim to be a scientist
tell us why CFDLs can't form around comets. Would it be an embarrassment to mainstream comet theory ? 
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 87,518
You claim to be a scientist
Your claim, you tell us.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
I am not claiming that they cannot form, so don't put words in my mouth.
I am stating (a few pages ago) that the surroundings around the comet are very turbulent, and thus the creation of a "current-free double layer" is highly unlikely, because of all the mixing that takes place.
However, if you can actually show me some data that such a double layer exists then please show me. It is easy to search the web for keywords and then copypaste some links, it is another thing to actually understanding the papers and the physical situation around an active comet.
I also do not understand the silly claim of "would it be an embarrassment for mainstream", but this is probably driven by the silly notion of the electric community that double layers are somehow and "do not touch" topic, illegal to use, because it has charge separation and electric fields. Naturally, this is complete and utter nonsense as a quick look on ADS can show you.
Last edited:
Sol88
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 8,437
Ahhhhh....just a question on the "very turbulent mixing" Tusenfem, how do you mathematically model that? (Lurkers, it's the real reason mainstream hate the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE or more specifically PLASMA)
On the other hand what Haig and I are trying to say is, the comet and the solar wind have all the criteria to satisfy both types of double layer formation and the best mainstream can come up with is a diamagnetic cavity???
Sol88
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 8,437
All that hard work, Tusenfem (hat tip to RPC team) and you still going to pin the whole (now obviously ELECTRIC) process on sublimation..still?
Though I notice the language in the paper makes no mention of sublimation, just liberated ions coupling the comet to the solar wind ??
Why would you not start with solar wind sputtering the comets ROCKY surface releasing the ions and coupling to the solar wind via that route and it can happen way past the sublimation points for ANY mixture of ice or gas or whatever magic is required to save the dirtysnowball!
but like Jonesdave116 said what would I know
...Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high,
There's a land that I heard of
Once in a lullaby.
made of ice and dust
and fluffy pink unicorns...
Though I notice the language in the paper makes no mention of sublimation, just liberated ions coupling the comet to the solar wind ??
Why would you not start with solar wind sputtering the comets ROCKY surface releasing the ions and coupling to the solar wind via that route and it can happen way past the sublimation points for ANY mixture of ice or gas or whatever magic is required to save the dirtysnowball!
but like Jonesdave116 said what would I know
...Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high,
There's a land that I heard of
Once in a lullaby.
made of ice and dust
and fluffy pink unicorns...
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,469
And this post says it all really.
The persecution fantasy that permeates the entire EC theory.
WE are completely right, but because THEY hate us our brilliance is ignored.
The EC theory is not ignored because of hate, or fear, or even mild dislike.
It is ignored because it is an unfounded mess of fantasy, wild guessing and misinterpretation of pictures. There is not a shred of data, nor an iota of actual testable predictions.
None of their ideas have even the slightest bit of empirical evidence either.
And there never will be, because in order to make EC work the fundaments of what we know about electricity would need to be different. As even high school physics precludes EC ideas, that means that rather than them admitting that even that much physics is beyond them, there must be a conspiracy to supress the 'real' laws of electricity.
As I mentioned before (which was of course ignored). If EC/EU were true, than those that understand it would be able to tap it's universal currents. And given the proposed strength of those currents that would give earth a limitless power supply. Anyone who can make a machine running on that would be obscenely wealthy. And universally revered as the person bringing earth a solution to about 30 major problems. Yet here they are. Posting on youtubes and fora about how *them* are hating.
Sol88
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 8,437
two answers to that me 'ol mate
1:
Why???
When a conductor moves through a magnetic field, there will be a generated motional emf. This is one example of Faraday's Law and it arises from the magnetic force.
2:
We have hooked our machine up (STS-75) and MONEY???? you have all the unlimited power of the universe and you want MONEY???? Sorry but that's why were F*$@ed
cant see how unlimtless energy is going to help over population and ecosystem destruction but whatever off topic
We can tap into the power we just can't store it yet!
Last edited:
Sol88
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 8,437
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,469
Because a comet's tail points AWAY from the sun and whereas if it were an electrical effect between the comet and the sun it would point TO the sun.
Because a visible electric effect is caused by a large current overcoming the resistance of a gas and exciting the molecules of that gas, neither of which applies in a vacuum
Because an electric current needs something to keep it going and there is none available in the solar system.
Because the electric effects proposed in the EU system would destroy or deflect any spacecraft ever sent up and this does not happen
Because in the EU system electricity would affect similar bodies differently whereas no such selectivity is ever shown.
Because in the EU system electrical effects in space need to be billions of time stronger than they are on earth to produce the proposed effects.
etc etc etc
If you can tap into the power you have an engine that does not need external power.
Congratulations, you've just made both the power network and all internal combustion engines obsolete.
No more need for petrol, kerosene, nuclear power plants. Just hook up the EU engine and pronto!, power directly from the sun itself.
Thus preventing the need for eco system destruction, removing a lot of need for conflict. And since we now have limitless power available anywhere on earth, there is no NEED to store it. After all, the sun isn't switching off anytime soon.
And we can now spend as much power as we need on desalination, thus solving the global water problems, giving us the deserts as potential farms.
No more need for large fuel tanks for spacecraft. The universe lies open.
It's a bit shocking that this isn't there yet.
Why, it's almost as if that engine doesn't actually work.
Because the proposed EU currents do not exist.
But by all means, prove me and everyone else wrong. I'd love that technology.
And why not make money from that?
As for your other complaint, that's been debunked often in numerous threads.
Only those that cannot get their idea's to work complain that they need to show that they work.
- Status