JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum Forum Index Register Members List Events Tags Help Go Back <#> JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology Reload this Page * The Electric Comet theory * Click Here To Donate User Name Remember Me? Password Notices Advertisement Help Menu Frequently Asked Questions Tutorials and Guides How To.... Guides Signatures and Avatars Post Formatting Codes Help Forum Membership Agreement Membership Agreement FAQ New Members 'Welcome Thread' New Members 'Hints & Tips' The Moderating Team Contact Us Site Map Event Calendars JREF Events Member Organized Events General Events JREF Forum Site Guide Links JREF Topics General Members Only Forum Home Page Welcome ! General Skepticism and the Paranormal Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology Community Forum Index JREF Education History, Literature, and the Arts Humor Links Manager $1M Dollar Challenge Economics, Business and Finance Conspiracy Theories Movies, TV, Music, Computer Gaming, and other Entertainment vBImage Host Latest Commentary Issues Religion and Philosophy Social Issues and Current Events Puzzles New Posts The Amaz!ng Meeting! and other Skeptical Events Non-USA & General Politics Computers and Internet Sport Linking to the Forum The Repository USA Politics Conjurer's Corner Forum Rules Moderating Team Book Reviews Skeptical Podcasts Forum Management Public Notices Forum Spotlight Forum Help Reply Page 17 of 29 *«* First < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 *17* 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 > Last *»* Thread Tools Old 11th November 2010, 12:48 PM #*641* Haig Critical Thinker Haig's Avatar Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 367 Originally Posted by *Reality Check* View Post Ah! So Haig you think this paper has any EU/PC non-science in it without even reading it? Not really but it does move away from the magnetic reconnection notion of what drives solar flares and CME etc. Also they discuss EMF which is a better explanation for the acceleration of the solar wind. Quote: It is obviously abut solar magnetic flux ropes and the toroidal Lorentz hoop forces on them. There is also the well known mainstream acceleration of particles by the magnetic fields (producing X-rays). Yes, even NASA are talking about magnetic ropes connecting the Sun to the Earth and supplying the power to drive the Aurora. How do these magnetic ropes not dispensate, maybe they are really Birkland currents Quote: But I do see where you got the idea that it does - there is a Thunderbolts forum post mentioning the paper. Ah! you read Thunderbolts too ;-) Quote: The author merely quotes the abstract and underlines that the paper is an alternative electromagnetic explanation to the magnetic reconnection theory. Yes, I know but it's a big step away from the dead end of magnetic reconnection theory. Quote: I hope that you are not one of the ignorant people that do not know the 0.6 is less that 3.0. Hope not. Quote: The application of the laws of electromagnetism (e.g. Maxwell's eqiuations) to physical situations. Agreed, they should be applied more in astronomy. Originally Posted by *Perpetual Student* View Post *To those who fight the never ending battle against crackpots like Sol88, Mozina, etc.: Your patience and endurance are admirable. Without your efforts these people would likely influence some of the uninformed audience to believe their nonsense. The more the lay public understands the nature of true science, the better off is our whole society. Thank you for your contributions to this forum. * Your entitled to your view but 60 years ago the scientific heretics pointed to the electromagnetic nature of our solar system. Today, the mainstream has dropped the sterile vacuum of space in favour of "space-weather" A rose by any other name .... Tomorrow, they may don more of the heretics clothes. Originally Posted by *DeiRenDopa* View Post Why? Well, I like to read for myself, if possible, before forming a view on something. Also, this paper, at least in the abstract, dismisses magnetic reconnection, which is a huge step towards EU/PC in my opinion. Quote: What, quantitatively, is the nature of the Sun's electric field, sufficient and necessary for the electric comet idea to be consistent with all the relevant observations (of comets)? See my post to DD. Haig 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Haig View Public Profile Find More Posts by Haig Old 11th November 2010, 01:00 PM #*642* DeiRenDopa Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 2,045 Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post [...] [me: why (does the paper you cited seem like EU/PC stuff to many)?] Well, I like to read for myself, if possible, before forming a view on something. Also, this paper, at least in the abstract, dismisses magnetic reconnection, which is a huge step towards EU/PC in my opinion. I think you may not have understood what the paper - or even the abstract - actually says (in terms of plasma physics) ... it does not "dismiss magnetic reconnection", it merely says that such a process may not be necessary to account for certain observed phenomena. If I may be so bold, I'd recommend that, if you are interested in this subject, you take some time and trouble to learn at least the basics of plasma physics. That should stand you in good stead when it comes to making informed judgements about what you read on the TB website, and what's posted here by the likes of tusenfem (an active researcher in space physics, who studied (got his PhD?) under Hannes Alfvén). It would also prevent you from writing comments that put you in the same class as the likes of Sol88, who are not only grossly ignorant of the relevant science, but apparently very proud of their ignorance. Quote: [me: What, quantitatively, is the nature of the Sun's electric field, sufficient and necessary for the electric comet idea to be consistent with all the relevant observations (of comets)?] See my post to DD. Sorry, I read that reply, several times, and I could find nothing *quantitative* in it whatsoever. Would you care to have another go at answering my question? DeiRenDopa 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> DeiRenDopa View Public Profile Find More Posts by DeiRenDopa Old 11th November 2010, 01:46 PM #*643* Reality Check Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 7,791 Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post Not really but it does move away from the magnetic reconnection notion of what drives solar flares and CME etc. Also they discuss EMF which is a better explanation for the acceleration of the solar wind. Wrong: They propose an alternative mechanism to the magnetic reconnection driving of *CME only*. Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post Yes, even NASA are talking about magnetic ropes connecting the Sun to the Earth and supplying the power to drive the Aurora. How do these magnetic ropes not dispensate, maybe they are really Birkland currents No they are not:Birkland currents Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post Yes, I know but it's a big step away from the dead end of magnetic reconnection theory. No I do not bother reading a non-science, crank web site. I do know how to use Google though . Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post Yes, I know but it's a big step away from the dead end of magnetic reconnection theory. Magnetic reconnection theory is not dead. It is alive and kicking and being used in magnetic reconnection experiments around the world. Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post Hope not. So you agree that: *The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked!* Thta is great to know that you are capable of learning physics, unlike Sol88 and the other EU/PC proponents. Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post Agreed, they should be applied more in astronomy. They are applied all the time in astronomy. I think that you are parroting the EU/PC delusion that the "electro" part of "electromagnetic" is ignored or downplayed in astronomy. That is wrong as a simple literature search will show you. There is a practical aspect though - magnetic fields are easier to detect than electric fields. So astronomers tend to describe observations that are electromagnetic in terms of the magnetic field. They know that this is equivalent to describing the observations in terms of electrical fields (so long as relativistic effects can be ignored) because an electrical field can be deduced from a magnetic field. Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post Your entitled to your view but 60 years ago the scientific heretics pointed to the electromagnetic nature of our solar system. Wrong: The electromagnetic nature of our solar system has been well known for a centry or so as pointed to by scientists, e.g. since Birkeland showed that aurora were generated from the interaction between the solar wind and the Earth's magnetic field. Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post Today, the mainstream has dropped the sterile vacuum of space in favour of "space-weather" Still wrong by many decades. Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post Well, I like to read for myself, if possible, before forming a view on something. Also, this paper, at least in the abstract, dismisses magnetic reconnection, which is a huge step towards EU/PC in my opinion. See my post to DD. The paper does not dissmiss magnetic reconnection. Dismissing magnetic reconnection for a specific set of observed phenomena has nothing to do with the validity of EU/PC. EU/PC has no validity. It is a collection of often mutually exclusive theories that are mostly wrong and differ according to which EU/PC proponent you talk to. But we are derailing the thread which is about the electric comet idea. I suggest you take the general EU/PC non-science stuff to one of the other threads on teh subject. __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation ) (and Abell 520 ) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1 ; Review 2 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Reality Check View Public Profile Visit Reality Check's homepage! Find More Posts by Reality Check Old 11th November 2010, 08:03 PM #*644* Sol88 Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 691 Agian what are the bright "spots" on the surface of Borrelly Halley Wild 2 Hartley 2 Temple 1 RC? DD? DieRD? TimT? __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists /somewhat/ ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) ?Black holes are where God divided by zero.? ? Comedian Steven Wright ------------------------------------------------------------------------ / Last edited by Sol88 ; 11th November 2010 at 09:22 PM. Reason: added temple 1 / 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Sol88 View Public Profile Find More Posts by Sol88 Old 11th November 2010, 08:22 PM #*645* Sol88 Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 691 [quote=ben m;6527775] Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post Lets try -4000v LINK -4000V? On the whole moon? Sol88, have you /ever/ done anything with that number? I just did. Calculate how much energy is stored by the excess charge on a 4000V moon. It's about one kilojoule. It's not enough electrical energy to /brew a cup of coffee/. It's not enough energy to fire a /camera flashbulb/. It's about the energy you get from /eating one Tic Tac/. Yes, tiny /static/ amount of charge separation, creating barely any voltage, storing practically no energy, and (listen carefully) NOT DISCHARGING. These are static conditions. Not if they're still in the diffusion situation that separated them to begin with. Anyway, if they DO "get back together", nothing happens. There's no energy there to do anything visible. Now I remember why I had you on ignore for years, Sol88. Mmmmm....don't know if that'd be correct, I'll do some more digging. I feel positive that the is more energy involed than that of a tic tak!!! __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists /somewhat/ ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) ?Black holes are where God divided by zero.? ? Comedian Steven Wright 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Sol88 View Public Profile Find More Posts by Sol88 Old 11th November 2010, 08:55 PM #*646* Humanzee Critical Thinker Humanzee's Avatar Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: I...hate...tapir...bones... Posts: 411 Lovely pics. Are they suppose to mean something to this lurker. Do they prove or show something relevent? Humanzee 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Humanzee View Public Profile Find More Posts by Humanzee Old 11th November 2010, 09:28 PM #*647* Sol88 Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 691 Originally Posted by *Humanzee* View Post Lovely pics. Are they suppose to mean something to this lurker. Do they prove or show something relevent? Yes, the bright spots in mainstream think are "ice" are they??? __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists /somewhat/ ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) ?Black holes are where God divided by zero.? ? Comedian Steven Wright 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Sol88 View Public Profile Find More Posts by Sol88 Old 11th November 2010, 09:30 PM #*648* Perpetual Student Master Poster Perpetual Student's Avatar Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,654 I see we have another "looks like a bunny" scientist--wannabe here. __________________ \xi Perpetual Student 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Perpetual Student View Public Profile Find More Posts by Perpetual Student Old 11th November 2010, 09:34 PM #*649* Reality Check Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 7,791 Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post Agian what are the bright "spots" on the surface of Borrelly http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/comet_borrelly.jpg Halley http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/comethalley.jpg Wild 2 http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~dean/blog/wild2.jpg Hartley 2 http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/epoxi...ey-2-slide.jpg Temple 1 http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0507...l1_its_mov.jpg RC? DD? DieRD? TimT? I know what they are not - anything contained in *The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!* , e.g. the physically impossible electrical discharges. Thank you once again Sol88 for reminding the world how utterly insane the electric comment idea is. As for the bright spots, I would guess: * Sunlight reflecting from reflective surfaces like water ice. * Some look like whiter material revealed by the jets. * Others could be internal material deposited by the jets. * Sunlight reflecting from vertical surfaces providing a contrast to the horizontal surface (Temple 1?) * etc. __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation ) (and Abell 520 ) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1 ; Review 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ / Last edited by Reality Check ; 11th November 2010 at 09:51 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Reality Check View Public Profile Visit Reality Check's homepage! Find More Posts by Reality Check Old 11th November 2010, 09:38 PM #*650* Reality Check Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 7,791 Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post Yes, the bright spots in mainstream think are "ice" are they??? As far as I know surface ice has only been found on Tempel 1. The bright spots in the various images probably have various causes. This of course points out the idiocy of posting images without links back to the source. I suspect that the sources say exactly what the bright spots are. Except the crackpot holoscience web site which will proabably spout their fantasies about what the bright spots are. __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation ) (and Abell 520 ) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1 ; Review 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ / Last edited by Reality Check ; 11th November 2010 at 09:53 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Reality Check View Public Profile Visit Reality Check's homepage! Find More Posts by Reality Check Old 11th November 2010, 09:56 PM #*651* Sol88 Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 691 Originally Posted by *Reality Check* View Post I konw what they are not - anything contained in *The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!* Thank you once again Sol88 for pointing out how utterly insane the electric comment idea is. As for the bright spots, I would guess: * Sunlight reflecting from reflective surfaces like water ice. * Some look like whiter material revealed by the jets. * Others could be internal material deposited by the jets. "ice" it is then! LINK Quote: This image of the surface of comet Tempel 1 was taken about 20 seconds before Deep Impact's probe crashed into the comet at 10:52 p.m. Pacific time, July 3. This particular region contains the impact site. The bright patches in the image may consist of very smooth and reflective material, the composition of which will be determined by Deep Impact's spectrometer. Dark areas are in shadow and provide information about surface topography. Higher terrain appears rough relative to lower areas that appear very smooth. Is this a layered surface? And how did the smooth regions form? These are some of the questions the science team plans to address. This image was taken by the probe's impactor targeting sensor. Did Deep Impact's spectrometer get that mystery sorted? Looks like a bunny, walks like a bunny.... __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists /somewhat/ ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) ?Black holes are where God divided by zero.? ? Comedian Steven Wright 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Sol88 View Public Profile Find More Posts by Sol88 Old 11th November 2010, 09:59 PM #*652* Sol88 Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 691 Originally Posted by *Reality Check* View Post As far as I know surface ice has only been found on Tempel 1. The bright spots in the various images probably have various causes. This of course points out the idiocy of posting images without links back to the source. I suspect that the sources say exactly what the bright spots are. Except the crackpot holoscience web site which will proabably spout their fantasies about what the bright spots are. Yes you are correct RC, they site does indeed say exactly what the bright spot are....they're bright spots and we dont know why they are there!!! But the jets seem to issue from bright "spots" __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists /somewhat/ ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) ?Black holes are where God divided by zero.? ? Comedian Steven Wright 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Sol88 View Public Profile Find More Posts by Sol88 Old 12th November 2010, 12:29 AM #*653* tusenfem Muse tusenfem's Avatar Join Date: May 2008 Location: Graz, Austria Posts: 946 Originally Posted by *Humanzee* View Post Lovely pics. Are they suppose to mean something to this lurker. Do they prove or show something relevent? Apparently, at least according to Sol88, the overexposed parts of those pictures show electrical discharges from negatively charged surface to negatively charged surface. For people who really think, it is clear that the albedo of the surface is NOT uniform (why should it be) nor is the colour. To make things visible in the dark parts of the comet's nucleus one unfortunately needs to over expose the brighter parts. __________________ *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) 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> tusenfem View Public Profile Visit tusenfem's homepage! Find More Posts by tusenfem Old 12th November 2010, 12:33 AM #*654* tusenfem Muse tusenfem's Avatar Join Date: May 2008 Location: Graz, Austria Posts: 946 Oh this is going to be so much fun when I start working on the magnetic field and plasma data from Rosetta in 2014 (ughhh so long still), with the satellite in orbit around Churyumov-Gerasimenko and the lander on the nucleus. __________________ *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) 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> tusenfem View Public Profile Visit tusenfem's homepage! Find More Posts by tusenfem Old 12th November 2010, 02:02 AM #*655* Aitch Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: StAines Posts: 2,731 Originally Posted by *tusenfem* View Post Apparently, at least according to Sol88, the overexposed parts of those pictures show electrical discharges from negatively charged surface to negatively charged surface. For people who really think, it is clear that the albedo of the surface is NOT uniform (why should it be) nor is the colour. To make things visible in the dark parts of the comet's nucleus one unfortunately needs to over expose the brighter parts. Ah, so they've ruled out the possibility that it's the light from the welding torches of the NWO operatives who are weaponizing the comets ready for the next false flag operation, then? Aitch 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Aitch View Public Profile Find More Posts by Aitch Old 12th November 2010, 02:36 AM #*656* Sol88 Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 691 Quote: Originally Posted by Haig View Post Yes, even NASA are talking about magnetic ropes connecting the Sun to the Earth and supplying the power to drive the Aurora. How do these magnetic ropes not dispensate, maybe they are really Birkland currents Quote: Originally Posted by Reality Check: No they are not:Birkland currents What are they then? __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists /somewhat/ ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) ?Black holes are where God divided by zero.? ? Comedian Steven Wright ------------------------------------------------------------------------ / Last edited by Sol88 ; 12th November 2010 at 02:37 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Sol88 View Public Profile Find More Posts by Sol88 Old 12th November 2010, 02:41 AM #*657* Sol88 Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 691 Originally Posted by *tusenfem* View Post Apparently, at least according to Sol88, the overexposed parts of those pictures show electrical discharges from negatively charged surface to negatively charged surface. For people who really think, it is clear that the albedo of the surface is NOT uniform (why should it be) nor is the colour. To make things visible in the dark parts of the comet's nucleus one unfortunately needs to over expose the brighter parts. How much information can we pull from the whiteout areas? How many pixels can we gather some sort of picture from? I mean, I zoom in on non whitearea and see dark and gray spots, in the whiteout, ZIP! What there metallic mirrors or something down there? __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists /somewhat/ ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) ?Black holes are where God divided by zero.? ? Comedian Steven Wright 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Sol88 View Public Profile Find More Posts by Sol88 Old 12th November 2010, 04:51 AM #*658* DeiRenDopa Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 2,045 Originally Posted by *Perpetual Student* View Post I see we have another "looks like a bunny" scientist--wannabe here. Actually, I don't think so. AFAICS, Sol88 has not offered any interpretation of images! Instead, he has asked what certain features he sees on those images are ... with the implication that because there is no good answer from the scientists who study comets, then the electric comet idea MUST be right! IOW, the logical fallacy called false dichotomy. However, he does not actually say this; why? DeiRenDopa 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> DeiRenDopa View Public Profile Find More Posts by DeiRenDopa Old 12th November 2010, 06:50 AM #*659* Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Dancing David's Avatar Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 26,350 Haig, Two problems, -the solar wind is comprised of three types of particles, negative ions, positive ions and neutral atoms and molecules, so what kind of the charge does that indicate? (You have to do better than you did.) -Um you do know that many comets like Hartley2 , do not have hugely elliptical orbits and so how does this alleged charge difference generate, so there is really a charge difference in Hartly2's orbit? What about the asteroids with comas that are in almost circular orbits? You do know that the ?dirty ice? is like CO_2 and things like that? __________________ Note: Often I am drawing too fine a point and will agree with you anyway in a general sense. "To say we need to travel everywhere in order to say there is no God is like saying we need to look behind the fridge to be sure our house isn't infested with galaxy clusters. "-Piggy 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Dancing David View Public Profile Find More Posts by Dancing David Old 12th November 2010, 07:00 AM #*660* tusenfem Muse tusenfem's Avatar Join Date: May 2008 Location: Graz, Austria Posts: 946 Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post How much information can we pull from the whiteout areas? How many pixels can we gather some sort of picture from? I mean, I zoom in on non whitearea and see dark and gray spots, in the whiteout, ZIP! What there metallic mirrors or something down there? If optical observations would be the only thing, then one needs to make pics with various resolutions, which was actually done. I just heard a talk by Nick Thomas in Bern, and the details of the surface we have of Hartley 2 are actually frakkin amazing!!! And in the pictures that can be used for scientific purposes, there is little or no over exposure. Oops, I am mixing up my flybys, this is about Rosetta flying by Lutetia. Never mind, there are other experiments on deep impact that measure Hartley 2, and found out that there is a lot of CO_2 see here , I cannot find the pic at the moment where they show the CO_2 signature around the comet. I am not familiar with how deep impact works and how versatile the camera that took the pictures is and I do not know how long the actual flyby lasted, for which there are images (and I am too lazy right now to look it up). But I can imagine that, as this is just extra stuff, the camera has just one exposure time and no pointing qualities, but I am gladly corrected on this by someone who knows better. Interesting is the 45 sec movie that shows the comet tumbling around and every time that the jets get into the sunshine the light up. But Sol88 seems to have a kind of simple minded idea about how thing can/are working in such missions. __________________ *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) 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> tusenfem View Public Profile Visit tusenfem's homepage! Find More Posts by tusenfem Old 12th November 2010, 07:34 AM #*661* DeiRenDopa Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 2,045 Originally Posted by *tusenfem* View Post [...] But Sol88 seems to have a kind of simple minded idea about how thing can/are working in such missions. You've identified yet another example of Sol88's pride in his ignorance, albeit this time the pride seems somewhat muted. Among the many responses to Sol88's posts, going back quite a long time, are some which explain the strengths and limitations of instruments on spaceprobes such as Deep Impact (well, at least some of the more obvious strengths and limitations); presumably Sol88 at least read these responses. Sadly, rather than understanding and later using this free knowledge, Sol88 seems to have completely ignored it! Perhaps he didn't understand it? But then why not ask questions until he did? Then, months' later, Sol88 repeats the same mistakes he's made earlier, thus providing clear evidence of not only ignorance but also pride in that ignorance. DeiRenDopa 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> DeiRenDopa View Public Profile Find More Posts by DeiRenDopa Old 13th November 2010, 02:35 PM #*662* Tim Thompson Muse Tim Thompson's Avatar Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: San Gabriel Valley, east of Los Angeles Posts: 773 Lightbulb *Bright spots are ... what?* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post How much information can we pull from the whiteout areas? In the absence of information about the imaging instrument we can pull no information at all about the relatively bright or dark features in /any/ image, period. What would those bright spots look like if you were standing there and looking at them with your eyes (ignoring for a moment the problem of death by vacuum)? Are the bright spots bright because the instrument is saturated? Or perhaps because the contrast has been stretched in post processing? If we had multi channel photometry, we might be able to say something about what materials or compounds the spots are made of, but we have no such information. So, in short, you ask us (and me in particular) what the bright spots in the various images are. My answer is that the data you present (press release images only) is very much insufficient to give any answer to the question at all. __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell Tim Thompson 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Tim Thompson View Public Profile Visit Tim Thompson's homepage! Find More Posts by Tim Thompson Old 13th November 2010, 04:55 PM #*663* Tim Thompson Muse Tim Thompson's Avatar Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: San Gabriel Valley, east of Los Angeles Posts: 773 Lightbulb *Flux Rope & CME* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post Anyone read this paper in full? In the abstract magnetic energy stored in the corona via reconnection is dismissed. Seems like EU/PC concepts are coming more into the mainstream and this, indirectly, supports the electric comet idea ? discuss please. First, there is no paper to read, only an abstract. Unless you were there to hear the talk, this abstract is all there is. Second, these are not EU/PC ideas, but have in fact been mainstream ideas in solar physics for decades. Indeed, even the statement in the abstract ("/In this talk, I will present a new concept ... /") is clearly not true as stated, since the sole author of the abstract, James Chen, has already delivered several talks & papers on this very topic over the last several years (e.g., Kunkel & Chen, 2010 ; Chen, 2008 ; Chen & Kunkel, 2008 ; Kunkel & Chen, 2008 ; Kunkel, /et al/., 2007 ; Krall, /et al/., 2006 ; Krall, St. Cyr & Chen, 2005 & etc.) Now the abstract Haig posted ... *Physics of Solar Coronal Mass Ejections * "/The traditional models, which envision releasing magnetic energy stored in the corona via reconnection (accomplished by specified and/or numerical dissipation in these models), have not produced quantitative agreement with the observed CME acceleration and propagation to 1 AU. In this talk, I will present a new concept that does not require reconnection and yields model CME dynamics in good quantitative agreement with data. The underlying magnetic structure is a flux rope, and the basic driving force is the toroidal Lorentz hoop force acting on a flux rope with two legs anchored in the Sun. The force equations were originally derived for axisymmetric toroidal tokamak equilibria by Shafranov, but the basic physics can be adapted to the dynamics of nonaxisymmetric solar flux ropes. The initial flux rope is driven out of equilibrium by increasing its poloidal flux. The calculated acceleration and subsequent propagation of model CMEs have been shown to correctly replicate the observed CME dynamics from the Sun to 1 AU, with the computed plasma and magnetic field parameters at 1 AU in close agreement with the in situ SW data. The increasing poloidal flux produces an electromotive force (EMF) that is sufficient to accelerate particles to X-ray energies. The predicted temporal profile of the EMF given by the best-fit solution to the observed CME trajectory is found to closely coincide with that of the observed associated solar flare X-ray intensity./" Now, since the abstract itself is all we have, no supporting paper to read, we must guard against over-interpreting what the author has to say. As I have already noted, it is quite wrong to interpret this as some kind of move for EU/PC ideas into the mainstream. Also pay attention to this from the abstract: "/... magnetic energy stored in the corona via reconnection .../". It is wrong to interpret this as a repudiation of magnetic reconnection altogether by the author, only a claim that magnetic reconnection as an energy transfer mechanism /in the corona/. See, for instance, Krall, /et al/., 2006 , wherein we find this (emphasis mine)... "/To drive the flux rope out of equilibrium, an increase in the flux rope helicity is specified, which, in this case, increases the poloidal flux from its initial value of 1.5 × 10^22 G cm^2 to a final value of 7.4 × 10^22 G cm^2 . This occurs very rapidly, over a period of 18 minutes. The interpretation of this helicity increase has been discussed at length elsewhere (Krall et al. 2001; Chen & Krall 2003). Here we say only that the origin of the helicity increase is not specified in the model and that it might be due to either *macroscopic reconnection*, as in the arcade?to?flux rope models (Miki & Linker 1994; Antiochos et al. 1999; Chen & Shibata 2000; Amari et al. 2000; Linker et al. 2001; Cheng et al. 2003), or to an unknown subphotospheric process that drives current along the length of the flux rope (Chen 1996)./" Chen is a co-author of this paper, and they are clearly not dropping magnetic reconnection, since they rely on it as one possible way to generate the helicity of the flux rope. So, all that said, one must ask the obvious question: What now is the actual point of citing this abstract? First, despite claims to the contrary, this has absolutely nothing at all to do with the topic of electric comets. Second, it has nothing at all to do with EU/PC ideas entering the mainstream. And thirdly, there is nothing in this abstract that is not perfectly consistent with the long term expression of mainstream physics in flares & CME's. Finally, let me conclude with a comment. As a general rule, EU/PC ideas do not come into the mainstream. Rather, the adherents of EU/PC distort mainstream ideas and adopt them into the EU/PC ideas, for the sole & single purpose of confusing the unwary. They put up ideas that "sound good" or 'look good" to people with no experience in the relevant science, but fail the test of consistency whenever they are subject to the real tests of real physics. __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell Tim Thompson 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Tim Thompson View Public Profile Visit Tim Thompson's homepage! Find More Posts by Tim Thompson Old 13th November 2010, 07:27 PM #*664* Tim Thompson Muse Tim Thompson's Avatar Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: San Gabriel Valley, east of Los Angeles Posts: 773 Lightbulb *Magnetic Reconnection Redux XIV* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post As a interested layman and just giving my take on what I've read. Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post As for overgeneralization ?.. Well what do you expect from a layman ;-) Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post Yes, I know but it's a big step away from the dead end of magnetic reconnection theory. If you are, as you say, a layman, then how do you know that magnetic reconnection theory is a "dead end"? What personal knowledge of your own tells you this? Or perhaps it is enough for you to simply parrot something that someone else tells you to say? How many plasma physics courses have you taken? How many plasma physics texts have you read? Here are examples from my own posts on magnetic reconnection: * Magnetic Reconnection Redux XIII * Magnetic Reconnection Redux XII * Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III These messages also link to several earlier messages, forming a small network discussing the mainstream science (both theory and observation) of magnetic reconnection physics. Can you tell me for yourself, based on your own personal knowledge, where I have made mistakes? After all, if you actually /know/ that magnetic reconnection is a "dead end", then you must certainly know where the mistakes are in my earlier posts. __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell Tim Thompson 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Tim Thompson View Public Profile Visit Tim Thompson's homepage! Find More Posts by Tim Thompson Old 13th November 2010, 09:28 PM #*665* Reality Check Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 7,791 Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post "ice" it is then! No: could be ice ! I know what they are not - anything contained in *The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!* Thank you once again Sol88 for pointing out how utterly insane the electric comment idea is. As for the bright spots, I would guess: * Sunlight reflecting from reflective surfaces like water ice. * Some look like whiter material revealed by the jets. * Others could be internal material deposited by the jets. * or something else that I do not know about. And of course all of the stuff that you do not know about since you are too lazy to do the research.. __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation ) (and Abell 520 ) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1 ; Review 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ / Last edited by Reality Check ; 13th November 2010 at 09:34 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Reality Check View Public Profile Visit Reality Check's homepage! Find More Posts by Reality Check Old 13th November 2010, 09:33 PM #*666* Reality Check Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 7,791 Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post Yes you are correct RC, they site does indeed say exactly what the bright spot are....they're bright spots and we dont know why they are there!!! But the jets seem to issue from bright "spots" You really cannot understand what you read but that is not a surprise from someone ignorant enough to believe in the EC idea (see *The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!* ) What I said was * I do not know what the bright spts are. * There are probably various causes for the bright spots. I am not every person in th eworld. I am (thankfully) not you. So in words of Tonto: Tonto's reply, "Who do you mean /we/, pale-face?" __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation ) (and Abell 520 ) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1 ; Review 2 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Reality Check View Public Profile Visit Reality Check's homepage! Find More Posts by Reality Check Old 14th November 2010, 12:09 PM #*667* John Hewitt Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 880 Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post Yes, the bright spots in mainstream think are "ice" are they??? I recall seeing comets discussed recently on "Sky at Night" - it may have been this month's and still available on iPlayer. The suggested cause of those bright spots, and it is just my recollection, was dry ice, solid CO2, subliming of from the surface at it approached closer to the sun. Information not guaranteed - purely recollection. __________________ *Evolution and Origin . http://www.evolution-origin.co.uk A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat . ** http://www.habitoflies.co.uk* John Hewitt 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> John Hewitt View Public Profile Find More Posts by John Hewitt Old 14th November 2010, 01:18 PM #*668* Reality Check Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 7,791 Originally Posted by *John Hewitt* View Post I recall seeing comets discussed recently on "Sky at Night" - it may have been this month's and still available on iPlayer. The suggested cause of those bright spots, and it is just my recollection, was dry ice, solid CO2, subliming of from the surface at it approached closer to the sun. Information not guaranteed - purely recollection. Unfortunately that is not what Sol88 is asking. He is demanding that we explain all of (possibly each individually!) the bright spots observed on comet nuclei. The answer is obvious: lots of causes (including sublimation of ices from the surface). I suspect that he has the typical crank delusion: That if we cannot explain something then it must be caused by his favorite theory, i.e. the totally debunked electric comet idea . There are two fundamental flaws in this 1. If the theory is already physically impossible then it cannot explain anything. For example, the idea of electrical discharges between the surface of a comet nuclei and some vague spot out in space is physically impossible. Electrical discharges happen when a dielectric (insulating) medium between 2 surfaces with different potentials breaks down allowing current to flow between the surfaces. But comet nuclei are not surrounded by a dielectric medium. They are surrounded by their coma which is a plasma and plasmas are highly conductive. 2. He commits the fallacy of false dichotomy. __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation ) (and Abell 520 ) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1 ; Review 2 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Reality Check View Public Profile Visit Reality Check's homepage! Find More Posts by Reality Check Old 14th November 2010, 02:14 PM #*669* John Hewitt Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 880 Originally Posted by *Reality Check* View Post Unfortunately that is not what Sol88 is asking. He is demanding that we explain all of (possibly each individually!) the bright spots observed on comet nuclei. The answer is obvious: lots of causes (including sublimation of ices from the surface). I suspect that he has the typical crank delusion: That if we cannot explain something then it must be caused by his favorite theory, i.e. the totally debunked electric comet idea . There are two fundamental flaws in this 1. If the theory is already physically impossible then it cannot explain anything. For example, the idea of electrical discharges between the surface of a comet nuclei and some vague spot out in space is physically impossible. Electrical discharges happen when a dielectric (insulating) medium between 2 surfaces with different potentials breaks down allowing current to flow between the surfaces. But comet nuclei are not surrounded by a dielectric medium. They are surrounded by their coma which is a plasma and plasmas are highly conductive. 2. He commits the fallacy of false dichotomy. My only point in saying this was from the context in which I have previously seen those photos. I hope Sol88 does not get the impression that I support whatever point you might be making. In fact, I cannot discern any point in your posts. If there is one, it is probably swamped by their pointlessly inflammatory tone. __________________ *Evolution and Origin . http://www.evolution-origin.co.uk A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat . ** http://www.habitoflies.co.uk* John Hewitt 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> John Hewitt View Public Profile Find More Posts by John Hewitt Old 14th November 2010, 04:05 PM #*670* Reality Check Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 7,791 Originally Posted by *John Hewitt* View Post My only point in saying this was from the context in which I have previously seen those photos. I hope Sol88 does not get the impression that I support whatever point you might be making. In fact, I cannot discern any point in your posts. If there is one, it is probably swamped by their pointlessly inflammatory tone. The point of my posts is to point out that the electric comet idea has been totally debunked . That seems fairly obvious. There is no inflammatory tone. Sol88 is supporting an idea that has been thoroughly debunked. His continued support of a debunked idea by definition makes him a crank. His tactics in this thread confirm that he is a crank, e.g. his continued inability to understand the simple reasons why the idea is invalid and his latest question asking that we supply him with explanations of all of the "bright spots" in images of comet nuclei. It is not inflammatory to state how Sol88 is presenting himself in this forum. I hope that you have read *The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!* and understood just how debunked the idea is. The "stupid" part of the title comes from the basic mathematical incompetence of the idea: It starts with the assumption that comets are rocks. But rocks such as asteriods have average densities of ~3.0 g/cc. The minimum density of any rock is 1.0 g/cc (otherwise you have a lump of ice). The measured density of comemts is ~0.6 g/cc. The rest of that post basically goes through the physics that the electric comet idea violates or ignores. There is some emphasis that the Thunderbolts web site is a crank web site that is essentially there to sell some books. __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation ) (and Abell 520 ) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1 ; Review 2 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Reality Check View Public Profile Visit Reality Check's homepage! Find More Posts by Reality Check Old 14th November 2010, 09:29 PM #*671* Sol88 Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 691 Quote: I hope Sol88 does not get the impression that I support whatever point you might be making. In fact, I cannot discern any point in your posts. If there is one, it is probably swamped by their pointlessly inflammatory tone Not at all, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in the "standard' Model and then weighing up the options for what's left. Seems the what's left bit is plasma, which we can study in the lab! __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists /somewhat/ ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) ?Black holes are where God divided by zero.? ? Comedian Steven Wright 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Sol88 View Public Profile Find More Posts by Sol88 Old 14th November 2010, 09:56 PM #*672* Sol88 Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 691 Reality Checks reality extends to Quote: As for the bright spots, I would guess: * Sunlight reflecting from reflective surfaces like water ice. * Some look like whiter material revealed by the jets. * Others could be internal material deposited by the jets. * or something else that I do not know about. And of course all of the stuff that you do not know about since you are too lazy to do the research.. Now take comet 17P/Holmes This "shiny" comet had an outburst of dust and gas as wiki quotes Quote: Although normally a very faint object, Holmes became notable during its October 2007 return when it temporarily brightened by a factor of about half a million, in what was the largest known outburst by a comet, and became visible to the naked eye. It also briefly became the largest object in the solar system, as its coma (the thin dissipating dust ball around the comet) expanded to a diameter greater than that of the Sun (although its mass remained minuscule).[2] And even though this little comet held onto it's enormous coma the sunlight was still able to penetrate all the way to the nucleus and all the way back out and still show the nucleus?? How did a comet with next to no mass hold onto an extended atmosphere of dust and gas against a stiff solar wind? Credit: University of Hawaii/CFHT (comet); NASA/Voyager (Saturn); NASA/ESA/SOHO (sun) EU says the coma is a double layer or plasma sheath around am object of different charge to the local plasma electrical environment. The rest we can study in a lab here on Earth. One of the signs to look out for if the coma is indeed a double layer is to look for X-Rays. Ohh Or the interruption to the flow of the solar wind Quote: Deep Space 1 took measurements with its plasma instruments between 90,000 kilometers (56,000 miles) and 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) away. These data show that the flow of ions around the comet's rocky, icy nucleus is not centered on the comet's nucleus as scientists expected before the Borrelly flyby. Ions in the turbulent flow are heated to about 1 million Kelvin (2 million degrees Fahrenheit). LINK It's fairly straight forward I would have thought! __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists /somewhat/ ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) ?Black holes are where God divided by zero.? ? Comedian Steven Wright 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Sol88 View Public Profile Find More Posts by Sol88 Old 15th November 2010, 12:14 AM #*673* tusenfem Muse tusenfem's Avatar Join Date: May 2008 Location: Graz, Austria Posts: 946 Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post Now take comet 17P/Holmes This "shiny" comet had an outburst of dust and gas as wiki quotes And even though this little comet held onto it's enormous coma the sunlight was still able to penetrate all the way to the nucleus and all the way back out and still show the nucleus?? How did a comet with next to no mass hold onto an extended atmosphere of dust and gas against a stiff solar wind? But that is not true, now, is it? A comet is /constantly/ losing mass, it is not holding on to anything, if it were it would not have a dust and an ion tail, and the dust and ions are constantly created by the interaction with the solar radiation and the solar wind. Sunlight can very easily get to the surface of the comet's nucleus, because the density of the coma around a comet is /small/. For example the derived column density of H_2 is 3E13 cm^-2 for comet Borelly. Now on Earth, the atmospheric depth at the surface is 1E3 g/cm^2 , which I will leave for Sol88 to convert to a number column density (N^2 has atomic mass 2*14 and m^p = 1.7E-24 g), so it is a /wonder/ acutally, that the Earth's surface get so much sunlight according to Sol88. Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post EU says the coma is a double layer or plasma sheath around am object of different charge to the local plasma electrical environment. The rest we can study in a lab here on Earth. And what does the excellent paper by Laakso say? And where are the studies of comets in a laboratory? Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post One of the signs to look out for if the coma is indeed a double layer is to look for X-Rays. How strong does a DL have to be to make it emit X-rays? Can you please show a paper that discusses this? Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post Or the interruption to the flow of the solar wind LINK It's fairly straight forward I would have thought! Ahhhhh, ions heated to 1 million Kelvin!!! wow that would be like 100 eV, sounds a lot in temperature, but in real units is shows that it is zilch, protons would be moving at 0.129 T^1/2 = 129 km/s, much LESS than the solar wind speed. I guess it is really impressive for holoscience, but rather pathetic in real science. Sol88, why not start stamp collecting as a hobby instead of EU "physics," looks to me it would be more suited. __________________ *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) 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> tusenfem View Public Profile Visit tusenfem's homepage! Find More Posts by tusenfem Old 15th November 2010, 12:49 AM #*674* Aitch Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: StAines Posts: 2,731 Originally Posted by *tusenfem* View Post Sol88, why not start stamp collecting as a hobby instead of EU "physics," looks to me it would be more suited. Oi! Don't diss the stamp collectors. I have quite a nice (but small) collection of George VI Rhodesian (and other African countries) stamps. And an almost complete collection of Edward VIII (including middle east overprints). My thematic collection (motorcycles) is coming on, too, Aitch 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Aitch View Public Profile Find More Posts by Aitch Old 15th November 2010, 02:41 AM #*675* Reality Check Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 7,791 Thumbs down *ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sol88 has brought up the crank ThunderBolts web site again and the list of EC "predictions" . I mentioned a couple of these in *The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!* So let's look at some of these predictions individually and in detail to show just how incompetent the authors of the EC idea are. That way I can reduce the above post in size as Sol88 is insisting in supplying even more material to debunk the EC idea. All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page. *_Ignorance and lying about the impact flashes_* Thunderbolt prediction: Quote: They would likely be similar to those of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 prior to striking Jupiter?s atmosphere: The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact. The ignorance is obvious: Electrical discharges (like lightning) require a dielectric (insulating) medium to break down to form a conduction path for the discharge between the surfaces with a voltage difference. But comets are surrounded by plasma. Plasma is a conducting medium (about as conducting as a metal in general). Thus no electrical discharges are possible. So the prediction is physically impossible. N.B. The prediction does not state that there will be a flash on or after impact. However this is what was expected. The result was a flash *on or after* impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus according to NASA . See the papers cited in Tim Thompson's *Deep Impact * post. ThunderBolts "confirmed" result: Quote: First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose. They are lying because their prediction (a flash shortly before impact) failed. They do not state what was actually seen, i.e. a flash *on or after* impact. __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation ) (and Abell 520 ) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1 ; Review 2 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Reality Check View Public Profile Visit Reality Check's homepage! Find More Posts by Reality Check Old 15th November 2010, 04:34 AM #*676* Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Dancing David's Avatar Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 26,350 Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post Not at all, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in the "standard' Model and then weighing up the options for what's left. Seems the what's left bit is plasma, which we can study in the lab! Seems you have a hard time actually describing the inconsistencies. And so you suggest something impossible. __________________ Note: Often I am drawing too fine a point and will agree with you anyway in a general sense. "To say we need to travel everywhere in order to say there is no God is like saying we need to look behind the fridge to be sure our house isn't infested with galaxy clusters. "-Piggy 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Dancing David View Public Profile Find More Posts by Dancing David Old 15th November 2010, 09:19 AM #*677* Tim Thompson Muse Tim Thompson's Avatar Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: San Gabriel Valley, east of Los Angeles Posts: 773 Lightbulb *Electric Comets & X-rays Redux* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post How did a comet with next to no mass hold onto an extended atmosphere of dust and gas against a stiff solar wind? As our friend *tusenfem* has pointed out, the question is based on a false premise: In fact, the comet did not hold on to any extended atmosphere at all, nor does any comet. In the case of 17P/Holmes, we can consult for instance Hsieh, /et al/., 2010 , which presents an interesting & relevant abstract. We present wide-field imaging of the 2007 outburst of Comet 17P/Holmes obtained serendipitously by SuperWASP-North on 17 nights over a 42-night period beginning on the night (2007 October 22-23) immediately prior to the outburst. Photometry of 17P's unresolved coma in SuperWASP data taken on the first night of the outburst is consistent with exponential brightening, suggesting that the rapid increase in the scattering cross-section of the coma could be largely due to the progressive fragmentation of ejected material produced on a very short time-scale at the time of the initial outburst, with fragmentation time-scales decreasing from t_frag ~ 2 × 10^3 to ~1 × 10^3 s over our observing period. Analysis of the expansion of 17P's coma reveals a velocity gradient suggesting that the outer coma was dominated by material ejected in an instantaneous, explosive manner. We find an expansion velocity at the edge of the dust coma of v_exp = 0.55 +/- 0.02 km s^-1 and a likely outburst date of t_0 = 2007 October 23.3 +/- 0.3, consistent with our finding that the comet remained below SuperWASP's detection limit of m_V ~ 15mag until at least 2007 October 23.3. Modeling of 17P's gas coma indicates that its outer edge, which was observed to extend past the outer dust coma, is best explained with a single pulse of gas production, consistent with our conclusions concerning the production of the outer dust coma. The coma brightens because of increased reflective surface area as ejected particles fragment, the measured expansion velocity shows that the comet is not holding on to any extended atmosphere, and the expansion of the coma is consistent with a single pulse of gas production, or in other words a single outburst. In short, there is nothing about the observed behavior of the comet that is contrary to the standard models of comets, certainly nothing about the observed behavior of the comet that will differentiate between a standard model versus an EU model, and likely nothing consistent with an EU model in any case. There are numerous additional papers to be found on comet 17P/Holmes, and as *tusenfem* has also already pointed out, the coma of the comet is very tenuous, easily allowing sunlight to penetrate all the way to the nucleus. Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post One of the signs to look out for if the coma is indeed a double layer is to look for X-Rays. Actually, that too is wrong. X-rays demonstrate either charged particles under very high acceleration (for continuum or bremsstrahlung emission) or charge exchange in highly ionized species or relaxation of excited nuclei (in the case of line emission, the former being more important around comets while the latter is more likely seen at the sun). While an exploding double layer might accelerate electrons to X-ray energies (I will leave that to *tusenfem*), it is certainly not the only way to generate X-rays. Therefore, the mere presence of X-rays in fact says nothing at ll definitive about double layers. Rather, one must come up with some other means of distinguishing double layers as the source for cometary X-rays. Meanwhile, let us consult Christian, /et al/., 2010 , which describes the observation of comet 17P/Holmes with the venerable Chandra X-ray Observatory . They find that 90% of the X-ray emission is in the energy range 300-400 eV, which is really quite wimpy as X-rays go. In the paper, analysis shows that the bulk of the X-ray emission from 17P/Holmes can be attributed to solar wind charge exchange involving C^+4 and C^+5 ions. This is a good fit to the observed SED and also accounts for the lack of higher energy X-rays that would be due to charge exchange with more massive and more highly ionized species (comet 8P/Tuttle showed strong charge exchange X-rays from O^+6 and moderate charge exchange X-rays from Ne^+8 and Ne^+9 ions, amongst others). So in fact, an actual physical analysis of the X-rays seen in both comets 17P/Holmes & 8P/Tuttle rule out double layers as a source for the X-rays observed. We have been over all of this before, so it is worth noting that *Sol88* and the electric comet crowd have nothing new to offer. All we see is a re-hash of ideas already debunked, falsified & otherwise intellectually laid to rest. See, for instance, my own Electric Comets III: No Eu X-rays (21 June 2009), Electric Comets II: References (20 June 2009, with more comet X-ray reference papers & physics) or Electric Comets I , where I point out that the energetics of comet X-rays as observed are not consistent with the energetics of comet X-rays as predicted by EU hypotheses. Originally Posted by *Sol88* View Post Or the interruption to the flow of the solar wind Quote: Deep Space 1 took measurements with its plasma instruments between 90,000 kilometers (56,000 miles) and 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) away. These data show that the flow of ions around the comet's rocky, icy nucleus is not centered on the comet's nucleus as scientists expected before the Borrelly flyby. Ions in the turbulent flow are heated to about 1 million Kelvin (2 million degrees Fahrenheit). LINK The reference is to comet Hyakutake and goes along with the Hyakutake X-ray image posted by *Sol88*. It is well known that the magnetic field that is carried along in the solar wind will drape over a comet coma (not the nucleus) as the magnetic field encounters the plasma of ions & free electrons in the comet nucleus. The draped magnetic field shapes the coma and near tail of the comet, and is a site of charged particle acceleration and therefore bremsstrahlung X-rays. The flow of ions around the comet will be controlled by the shape of the coma & draped magnetic field and not by the shape or location of the comet nucleus. And asymmetric outgassing of the comet will create an asymmetric coma and easily explain the "off center" flow, where "center" is presumed to be the comet nucleus. This is no problem for a standard model of comets. Does anyone in the electric comet crowd have any /new/ ideas? Are we eternally doomed to re-debunk and re-falsify the same ideas already debunked & falsified before? __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell Tim Thompson 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Tim Thompson View Public Profile Visit Tim Thompson's homepage! Find More Posts by Tim Thompson Old 15th November 2010, 11:18 AM #*678* Haig Critical Thinker Haig's Avatar Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 367 Not sure if what I?ve posted below is new to you or not but it is new to me. Maybe mainsteam theory on comets will come back to what is was over a hundred years ago ? Comets are electrical phenomena. NASA are now saying CO2 (carbon dioxide) power the jets on comets. No water ice has been found on any other comets surface. See comet Borrelly and comet Wild 2 The nucleus of a comet is a ball of ice and rocky dust particles that resembles a dirty snowball. The ice consists mainly of frozen water but may include other frozen substances, such as ammonia, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and methane http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/comet_worldbook.html "Previously it was thought that water vapor from water ice was the propulsive force behind jets of material coming off of the body, or nucleus, of the comet," said University of Maryland Astronomy Professor Jessica Sunshine, who is deputy principal investigator for the EPOXI mission. "We now have unambiguous evidence that solar heating of subsurface frozen carbon dioxide (dry ice), directly to a gas, a process known as sublimation, http://epoxi.umd.edu/7press/news/20101110.shtml *Comets: The Loose Thread* Comets are giving accepted comet theory a hard time. Close-up images of comet nuclei from spacecraft have contradicted about every expectation of theory. (?Expectation? is a euphemism for ?prediction?; a disappointed expectation is practically the same thing as a failed prediction, except with the former you don?t expect you?ll have to discard the theory.) ?If astronomy were a science,? as one astronomer put it, theoreticians would admit that the theory had been falsified, and they would start over with an eye to the evidence. Instead, they hang on to the theory with ever more stubbornness and hope a little tinkering and adjusting will bring the facts into line. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...0923comets.htm *From English Mechanic & World of Science, 11 Aug 1882, pp. 516-7.* COMET'S TAILS"...There seems to be a rapidly growing feeling amongst physicists that both the self-light of comets and the phenomena of their tails belong to the order of electrical phenomena." *From Nature, No. 1370, Vol. 53, Jan 30, 1896, p. 306*. Theory of Comet's Tails "It has long been imagined that the phenomenon of comet's tails are in some way due to a solar electrical repulsion, and additional light is thrown on this subject by recent physical researches. ... Prof. Fessenden suggests that negatively charged particles are emitted from that side of a comet which is turned towards the sun..." (Astrophysical Journal, vol. iii. No. 1) *Science at the end of the 19th century was closer to the truth about comets than we are now! * http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=uf4ty065 *Movies taken by Deep Impact's flyby spacecraft shows the flash that occurred when comet Tempel 1 ran over the spacecraft's probe* http://www.nasa.gov/mov/121520main_HRI-Movie.mov http://www.nasa.gov/mov/121527main_MRI_impact.mov http://deepimpact.umd.edu/gallery/an...n.html#pre-enc *Comets - Remember, debating facts is a thought crime.* Comets are not made out of water and ice; they are made out of rock. They discharge a plasma coma due to the rapidly changing electrical field they are moving through. Since they spend most of their time in the outer solar system, they acquire a charge relative to that environment. As it approaches the Sun?s electrical field, it has to equalize its charge rapidly which causes the discharging we see as comet tails. (my video covering the facts presented on this page) The deep impact mission, which sent a probe out to impact comet Tempel 1, found the following: 1. The copper impactor generated such an energetic explosion that the primary mission sensors were swamped and the primary mission of photographing the crater was unable to be carried out. (Such a flash would be expected with a metal object approaching a highly charged object) "We didn't expect the success of one part of the mission (bright dust cloud) to affect a second part (seeing the resultant crater). But that is part of the fun of science, to meet with the unexpected. " Physicist Wal Thornhill commenting: "It is now well documented that every scientist associated with the project was stunned by the scale of the energetic outburst. These scientists understood the kinetics of impact, and they all agreed that the explosion would be equivalent to 4.8 tons of TNT. That?s a good-sized bomb, but not even close to what occurred." http://sites.google.com/site/cosmolo...musings/comets ------------------------------------------------------------------------ / Last edited by Haig ; 15th November 2010 at 11:22 AM. / Haig 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Haig View Public Profile Find More Posts by Haig Old 15th November 2010, 12:04 PM #*679* Haig Critical Thinker Haig's Avatar Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 367 *Comets - an introduction* From this wealth of new information, it is becoming apparent that there is no clear boundary between asteroids and comets. Indeed, the outermost asteroids show similarities with the cometary nuclei observed far from the Sun. http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/R...XZ374OD_0.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ / Last edited by Haig ; 15th November 2010 at 12:16 PM. / Haig 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Haig View Public Profile Find More Posts by Haig Old 15th November 2010, 12:50 PM #*680* Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Dancing David's Avatar Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 26,350 Originally Posted by *Haig* View Post NASA are now saying CO2 (carbon dioxide) power the jets on comets. No water ice has been found on any other comets surface. Yeah? So what is frozen CO_2 Hmmm? Quote: "Previously it was thought that water vapor from water ice was the propulsive force behind jets of material coming off of the body, or nucleus, of the comet," said University of Maryland Astronomy Professor Jessica Sunshine, who is deputy principal investigator for the EPOXI mission. "We now have unambiguous evidence that solar heating of subsurface frozen carbon dioxide (dry ice), directly to a gas, a process known as sublimation, http://epoxi.umd.edu/7press/news/20101110.shtml Oh look at that, they eevn say it is sublimation of dry ice! *Comets: The Loose Thread* Comets are giving accepted comet theory a hard time. Close-up images of comet nuclei from spacecraft have contradicted about every expectation of theory. (?Expectation? is a euphemism for ?prediction?; a disappointed expectation is practically the same thing as a failed prediction, except with the former you don?t expect you?ll have to discard the theory.) ?If astronomy were a science,? as one astronomer put it, theoreticians would admit that the theory had been falsified, and they would start over with an eye to the evidence. Instead, they hang on to the theory with ever more stubbornness and hope a little tinkering and adjusting will bring the facts into line. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...0923comets.htm Quoting Thunderbolts means nothing, who said this and where, worse tahn wikipedia, Thunderbolts generally has no citations. So what is this hard time Haig, can you actually explain it or just copy and paste? Quote: *From English Mechanic & World of Science, 11 Aug 1882, pp. 516-7.* COMET'S TAILS"...There seems to be a rapidly growing feeling amongst physicists that both the self-light of comets and the phenomena of their tails belong to the order of electrical phenomena." *From Nature, No. 1370, Vol. 53, Jan 30, 1896, p. 306*. Oh great are you going to call it phlogiston now? Where is the data of these electrical fields and discharges Haig? Quote: Comets are not made out of water and ice; they are made out of rock. Oh sure, so where is that density study haig? __________________ Note: Often I am drawing too fine a point and will agree with you anyway in a general sense. "To say we need to travel everywhere in order to say there is no God is like saying we need to look behind the fridge to be sure our house isn't infested with galaxy clusters. "-Piggy 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 <#JREF_Forum_top> Dancing David View Public Profile Find More Posts by Dancing David Reply Page 17 of 29 *«* First < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 *17* 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 > Last *»* JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology Bookmarks * Submit Thread to Digg Digg * Submit Thread to del.icio.us del.icio.us * Submit Thread to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon * Submit Thread to Google Google * Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit *«* Previous Thread | Next Thread *»* Thread Tools Show Printable Version Show Printable Version Email this Page Email this Page Download This Thread Download This Thread <#top> 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* User Control PanelPrivate MessagesSubscriptionsWho's OnlineSearch ForumsForums Home JREF Topics Welcome! JREF Million Dollar Challenge Challenge Applications Latest Commentary Issues The Amaz!ng Meeting! and other Skeptical Events TAM Scholarship Auction Reference The Repository Forum Newsletters Book Reviews Forum Spotlight General Topics General Skepticism and The Paranormal Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology Education Economics, Business and Finance History, Literature, and the Arts Religion and Philosophy Conspiracy Theories 9/11 Conspiracy Theories USA Politics Non-USA & General Politics Social Issues & Current Events Computers and the Internet Conjuror's Corner Members Only Forum Community Humor Movies, TV, Music, Computer Gaming, and other Entertainment Puzzles Sports Archive Old TAM Auction Threads All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:42 PM. Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2011, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. © 2001-2011, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved. *Disclaimer*: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. -- JREF---- The Blues---- Drab Olive---- True Blue---- Aqua---- Vimto---- Purple Haze---- Dull Day---- Eco---- Mobile---- Nobby's classy style-- Default vBulletin * Contact Us - James Randi Educational Foundation - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top <#top> *