• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
What the frak are "left over" electrons?

I knew this was useless. Of course it has to come again to the "difficult non-linear behaviour of plasmas", for which there are numerous text books, actually.
Your blatant disdain for mainstream science once again comes clearly to the surface.

:D

No, when pressed you retreat, pretty standard tactic of yours...

For instance, the nucleus is of a different potential than the surrounding plasma and is moving quite quick thru this medium.

What effects might we see on the plasma?

I would say a double layer at a minimum.
 
Not as impressive is that Sol88 removed that science from his post! No surprise given 11 or more years of denying science.

That was a figure from Experimental Methods of Dust Charging and Mobilization on Surfaces with Exposure to Ultraviolet Radiation or Plasmas. This the uncited paper he lies about with his "Patched Charge Model" question. The paper abstract has

It is not a paper about electrostatic ejection of dust from comets. Comets are mentioned in the context of electrostatic transport of dust across the surface of comets. They talk about dust pools on on 67P and cite Redistribution of particles across the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

That recent in 2018 "patched charge model" if supported will become part of the mainstream ice and dust comet model. That is irrelevant to his cult's debunked and dead dogma which only has ignorant fantasies about imaginary enormous electric discharges blasting magically charged dust from the surface of comets impossibly made of actual rock.

Andddd to jonesdave116’s delight, no solar wind required to access the nucleus! Electric fields may play a role though. :thumbsup:

They seem important.
 
It is losing mass due to ice sublimating. The ice disappears into space. Therefore mass is lost. It takes a bunch of dust with it. Therefore additional mass is lost. This is not rocket science, and is observed to happen. Otherwise, if all you want is electric woo to be responsible for mass loss, then we might as well junk this thread and open a new one on how asteroids lose mass. Because that is all you have left. Difference is, we can see the gas and dust leaving comets. We cannot (for the most part) see it happening at asteroids. So, what is the difference? Why do comets develop a coma of gas and dust, and the vast majority of asteroids don't? It is the same environment that they inhabit. It is the same star charging the sunlit surface positive. It is the same solar wind electrons charging the anti-sunward side negative.
So, you are back to trying to explain why this doesn't happen to EVERY SINGLE asteroid, eh? And we have determined that you cannot do that. We are back to an impossible radial field, that only affects comets but not asteroids. Even the asteroids on cometary orbits.
So, as usual with you, we are just going in circles, from one impossible mechanism to another, none of which you can explain. And all because you got conned by a couple of scientifically illiterate Velikovskians.


Seems like it would be a good use of funds. Mission to asteroids to examine their electric fields and solar plasma phenomena.
 
Years of lies about posts, posters and science

Years of lies about posts, posters and science ("Little in the way of sublimation required...")

The post he quoted and the paper he cited are not about sublimation at all and not about his cult's debunked and dead dogma of comets being rock. The paper is about the electrostatic transport of dust across surfaces by elections and UV - mainstream science unrelated to his fantasies. It is not directly related to the mainstream ice and dust cometary science of electrostatic ejection of dust by elections and UV when sublimation is not the dominant mechanism that he has been spamming the tread, obsessed with and lying about for years.
 
Last edited:
Years of lies about posts and posters continues

Years of lies about posts and posters continues ("when pressed you retreat").

11 years in this thread alone of Sol88 being abysmally ignorant about science, asking irrelevant questions about mainstream textbook physics and totally ignoring the answers (or lying abut them!) has resulted in posters only occasionally and futilely trying to educate Sol88. The fact that he has been a follower of an obvious cult with only blatantly ignorant fantasies and delusions for even longer shows that he has never was and is incapable of understanding the real world of astronomy, e.g. comets were measured to have densities that ruled them out from being rock in the 1950's!

tusenfem's What the frak are "left over" electrons? post is a refusal to answer yet more trolling with irrelevant questions about mainstream ice and dust comets when textbooks exist. tusenfem gives a link to textbooks where Sol88 can learn about plasma physics.
 
Years of lying about double layers at comets continues

Years of lying about double layers at comets continues ("I would say a double layer at a minimum").

An ignorant fantasy from someone who is still abysmally ignorant of the subject as the 11 years in this thread alone of blind faith in an obvious cult with only blatantly ignorant fantasies and delusions shows.

There are no double layers at comets because the interaction of the solar wind and coma causes turbulence which makes them impossible. tusenfem is a plasma physicist researching comets and pointed this out a long time ago.
 
Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues ("solar wind required")

Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues ("no solar wind required")

My post cites the paper he is trolling the thread with and that paper is about the electrons in plasma (solar wind) and UV (sunlight) charging dust particles. He even quoted that :jaw-dropp!
Not as impressive is that Sol88 removed that science from his post! No surprise given 11 or more years of denying science.

That was a figure from Experimental Methods of Dust Charging and Mobilization on Surfaces with Exposure to Ultraviolet Radiation or Plasmas. This the uncited paper he lies about with his "Patched Charge Model" question. ....
The 3 experiments listed use
  • argon gas + an electron beam producing a thermal plasma.
  • an electron beam alone
  • UV only
on insulating dust particles of a few tens of microns in diameter. The introduction explicitly states airless bodies "directly exposed to solar wind plasma and solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation".
 
Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues (""good use of funds")

Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues (""good use of funds").

jonesdave116's It is losing mass due to ice sublimating. post stars with the physical fact that comets lose mass because the ice that is detected (and that Sol88 says they have by citing many mainstream ice and dust comet papers stating that :eye-poppi) will sublimate when heated by the Sun. There will be additional mass loss from dust being ejected from ice and dust nuclei.

Testing a crackpot cult's fantasies is never a good use of funds. We have visited asteroids with spacecraft capable of measuring electric fields and there was nothing out of the mainstream found. Those spacecraft include Rosetta ("asteroids 21 Lutetia and 2867 Šteins") :jaw-dropp!

His cult has a delusion that a massive solar electric field turns basically what are asteroids into comets. What makes that a delusion is that we have looked at and catalogued hundreds of thousands of asteroids and none of them are comets :jaw-dropp! There are a few active asteroids that have visual characteristics similar to comets (comae, tails) due to various processes. But according to the cult dogma, all asteroids or at least hundreds of thousands of asteroids in similar orbits to active asteroids must be comets.
EC predicts that 605,650 asteroids should be comets (23 August 2013 - updated the numbers)!

Sol88 cannot explain this because "And all because you got conned by a couple of scientifically illiterate Velikovskians." These are the fantasist David Talbott spinning physically impossible fairy tales from his fantasies about myths and the documented liar and deluded Hollow Earth, gravity and nuclear forces are electromagnetic, textbook electromagnetism is wrong! ("orbits of sub-subatomic charges within the electrons and protons"*) believer Wal Thornhill (note his physics degree).
It is Wal Thornhill's recent The Electric Universe Heresy fantasies and lies that show that he has become deluded about physics and implies his cult's dogma deluded since he is their prophet denying the physics he has learned.
He is deluded about electromagnetism. It is well known physics that orbiting charges are accelerating, emit radiation and spiral into the central body (Larmor radiation). That is why atoms cannot be classical electrons physically orbiting a nucleus. Atoms would exist for a very short timescale. Applying this deluded physics to electrons is worse. Elections have never been seen to decay and are extremely small (may even be point particles).
He is deluded about gravity and nuclear forces being electromagnetism. Gravity does not depend on charge and is not shielded. Nuclear forces act between neutral neutrons and are attractive between positive protons. Nucleons contain 3 quarks as shown by physical evidence not whatever "sub-subatomic charges" he imagines.
There are blatant lies such as "we have no evidence that neutrons exist in the nucleus". deuterium is twice the mass of hydrogen with the a single proton in the nucleus. Radioactive elements emit neutrons from the nucleus.
A neutron are a "transient coupling of an electron and proton" delusion when the spins make this impossible. The proton and electron spins of 1/2 add up to 0 or 1. A neutron is spin 1/2.
etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
:D

No, when pressed you retreat, pretty standard tactic of yours...

For instance, the nucleus is of a different potential than the surrounding plasma and is moving quite quick thru this medium.

What effects might we see on the plasma?

I would say a double layer at a minimum.

And you wouldn't know what you are talking about. As usual. For the millionth time, why is this not happening to asteroids? And what is the potential of the quasi-neutral solar wind that asteroids and comets move through? How charged can they get before the plasma they are moving through reacts to nullify that charge? Et cetera. Stick to Velikovsky, eh?
 
Andddd to jonesdave116’s delight, no solar wind required to access the nucleus! Electric fields may play a role though. :thumbsup:

They seem important.

Nope. And nobody is making such a claim. Nobody who is sane and qualified, that is.
 
Seems like it would be a good use of funds. Mission to asteroids to examine their electric fields and solar plasma phenomena.

Why? We can see from here that they are not turning into comets. WHY NOT?

1 million and one.
 
So, just a recap of where we are up to;

No rock. No evidence presented of rock. No mechanism presented for why they would be rock.

No discharges or EDM (lol). No evidence presented of such. No mechanism presented for such.

No explanation of why asteroids on cometary orbits, or any other orbits, are not turning into comets. No mechanism presented for why they would.

No explanation for ice that shouldn't be there. No explanation for the various gases that shouldn't be there. No mechanisms presented for how they are getting there.

Sounds like a massive failure to me. No further on than when this woo first started being spammed around the internet a decade and a half ago. By which time it had already been debunked by missions that took place twenty years earlier! What a waste of fifteen years! One could obtain five Bachelors degrees in that time! A mere one would be sufficient to all but the dimmest to make them realise why this impossible woo is.........impossible!
 
Last edited:
:D

No, when pressed you retreat, pretty standard tactic of yours...

For instance, the nucleus is of a different potential than the surrounding plasma and is moving quite quick thru this medium.

What effects might we see on the plasma?

I would say a double layer at a minimum.

I see that you cannot tell us what "left over" electrons are.
 
I see that you cannot tell us what "left over" electrons are.


Sorry, my bad. “Extra” electrons not “left over”...

Asaruleofthumb,adustparticle collects about 700 extra electrons per unit particle volumeequivalent radius (measured in µm) and unit electric potential difference between the particle surface and the surrounding plasma (measured in V).
Cometary Dust

So, what are you able to tell us about the charged cometary nucleus traveling thru and immersed in a plasma flow?

:rolleyes:
 
And you wouldn't know what you are talking about. As usual. For the millionth time, why is this not happening to asteroids? And what is the potential of the quasi-neutral solar wind that asteroids and comets move through? How charged can they get before the plasma they are moving through reacts to nullify that charge? Et cetera. Stick to Velikovsky, eh?

quasi-neutral, ya say... :rolleyes:


I say, we are back to square one... double :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
But.... some do, why?


What, a couple out of millions? And why, indeed, are they? Are you saying that your woo picks on comets only, plus a few specially selected asteroids, none of which are on elliptical orbits, to suddenly make an appearance? Or could it be that your impossible woo is impossible, and the observed ice of comets, and the vapour it produces are responsible for the comae of comets?
 
quasi-neutral, ya say... :rolleyes:


I say, we are back to square one... double :rolleyes:

Yes, quasi-neutral. As everybody knows. Tell us why it wouldn't be. You want more of one charge leaving the Sun than the other? Engage brain for a few seconds and work out what that would imply for the Sun. And the solar wind.
 
Sorry, my bad. “Extra” electrons not “left over”...

Cometary Dust

So, what are you able to tell us about the charged cometary nucleus traveling thru and immersed in a plasma flow?

:rolleyes:

Just tell us what you think it is doing to asteroids first. No difference in the charging mechanism. However, asteroids are permanently subject to this effect, due to not being shielded from the solar wind by outgassing for long periods. Comets aren't. So, asteroids should be where all the action is. And isn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom