The Electric Comet theory

[Sol88]

It looks liek a magic bunny, so with no evidence other than you magical surmise you have nothing but a magic bunny picture.

same as it ever was.

I am very impressed by the vast improvement in your writing skills recently, what changed between the time you first started posting and your recent posts?
You know write coherent complete sentences and no longer make the grammatical errors that you used to.

Is it a spell checker?

mAd skillz and 6 yrs off posting here I guess!

but thanks anyway, just wish me 'ol english teacher could see me now

 

[Reality Check]

Sorry 'ol mate!

Sorry 'ol mate, but thinking that your wishes or impatience take priority over 20 years of hard work by scientists is totally off topic, Sol88.

There may be "bright pixel saturated discreet regions at the source of the jets" - pixels tend to saturate when the instrument is pointed at bright stuff e.g. the sources of jets!

Any idea that these would have anything to do with the debunked eclectic comet idea is a delusion - those areas will not be rocks or electrical discharges r EDM! They will be pixels saturated because the instrument is looking at something bright enough to saturate the pixels.

Access to Rosetta data is a blog explaining how reasonable it is that people who spend decades making Rosetta work should get a short period of time to process the data that they were responsible for collecting. It points out the obvious - that an "open data" policy is an exception for a mission rather than the norm.
Some of comments are asking for more releases mainly for publicity purposes or wishes for instant gratification.

 

[Reality Check]

Realty Check had a crack at it and is still quite blind to the contradiction in the statement by Jessica Sunshine and the paper by Holger Sierks

Wrong, Sol88: I can read and understand the papers and see that they are about two different topics
*water ice in the surface and below.
* a simulation of mixtures of ice on cliffs that produce jets.
You may want to do read the actual science some day !

 

[Reality Check]

Please tell me about the clay, carbonates, and crystallised silicates found in the deep impact mission, reality check.

Really please do.

There were clay, carbonates, and crystallised silicates found in the deep impact mission as well water ice on the surface and below and many other discoveries, Sol88 .

Done

 

[Reality Check]

Sorry you are right, the original quote was

An incoherent set of quotes:

Holger Sierks said, “Higher strength material that was a surprise to us.” “With this picture of dust falling back to the surface forming high porosity layers, we failed to explain the rebounds.” “It’s rocky-like stuff, but not rock.” “We also see this stuff shining through where the dust layer is wiped away or fallen off following the gravitational field and exposing a higher-strength material and this is something we could consider be the reason for the rebound.”

followed by a delusion not about finding ice - MIDAS found ice .

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped irrelevant text...

Which just leaves a delusion that comets are from Mars, Sol88!
This seems based on continued ignorance about the composition of comets which includes duct from the outer solar system.

My post was about a previous delusion abut rock being found on Tempel 1:

That is a delusion abut rock being found on Tempel 1, Sol88.
The Deep Impact projectile went into "talcum powder" not rock.
The ejecta from Deep Impact was dust and ice.
The outgassing from Deep Impact included water and dust.

 

[Reality Check]

Well we can see inside the nucleus where the cliffs have been exposed on 67P, no ice visible BUT we have jets!!

Well no we cannot see inside the nucleus, Sol88, since the cliffs are the surface of the nucleus ! And the repeat of the Thunderbolts delusion that jets come from exposed ice!

 

[Reality Check]

Are you able to enlighten me on the

Ok Sol88: Be enlightened that Wikipedia is sometimes a bad source .

Other materials found while studying the impact included clays, carbonates, sodium, and crystalline silicates which were found by studying the spectroscopy of the impact.[15] Clays and carbonates usually require liquid water to form and sodium is rare in space.[42]

And [42] is a dead link!
Crystalline silicates which were found by studying the spectroscopy of the impact are not the delusion of "sound a LOT like rock"!!!
And not enough surface ICE implied subsurface ice (that was detected in the impact) from the water production in the coma and tail.

 

[Reality Check]

Are you able to state unequivocally water ice has been found on or in 67P?

Sol88: No one claims that any amount of just water ice has been found on or in 67P.
I would say that anyone can follow the basic logic of

1. The density of comets is measured in various ways to be less than water.
2. The composition of comets is measured in various ways to be dust and ices - including water ice.
3. The MIDAS probe found a layer that is too hard to be dust.
4. Thus that layer is ices - including water ice.

The ices that sublimate are a mixture of ices, The jets are a mixture of gasses. This includes water. Thus some water ice has been found on or in 67P. This is physically unequivocal.

 

[Reality Check]

So why weren't the icy cliffs shown on the map where the water ice was located??

Because that would be insane, Sol88 !
The icy cliffs were drawn on the map where they were found.
The surface water ice was drawn on the map were it was found.

 

[Reality Check]

Ok Tusenfem, lots of ice all thru the comet, all kinds of ice including:

That is right, Sol88 and little problem for astronomers. Now list the electric comet mechanisms for the production of (no fantasies please):
H2O
H2O2
...
NaOH sodium hydroxide
NaCl sodium chloride

SOURCE

So what about the about the clay, carbonates, and crystallized silicates, Sol88?

 

[Reality Check]

Also

a 2005 press release, Sol88, Tempel 1's Secret Ingredients Revealed where you still ignore:

Astronomers were most surprised to see clay, carbonates, and crystallized silicates because these chemicals are thought have formed in warm environments, possibly near the Sun, but away from the chilly outer neighborhood of comets. How did these compounds get inside comets? One possibility is that materials in our early solar system mixed together before being sorted out into individual bodies.

Another possibility is transport of inner system dust outward by solar radiation or a strong solar wind.

Clay minerals in primitive meteorites and interplanetary dust 2. Smectites and micas

iron-containing compounds: a little ambiguous to list but cherry picking one is bad, Sol88.

carbonates: Good that you did not cherry pick a single carbonate , Sol88.

crystallized silicates: Generally need high temperatures to form as in the early solar system (the "warm environments" above) !

 

[Reality Check]

Two flashes predicted, two flashes observed.

Are you repeating a Thunderbolts lie from some other part of their web site, Sol88?
ETA: Looks like a Thunderbolts restatement of the original lie + a new lie. The 2005 July 07 page has "Electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill predicted two blasts" but they omit that this would be one flash before the impact and then the impact flash. See below for the new lie by quote mining.

The 2005 prediction is for a single flash before impact and they list two flashes after the impact as a confirmed prediction, i.e. they lie. Follow links get the text of the lie:
28th November 2010: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
15th November 2010: ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes
Thunderbolts predictions confirmed
The prediction:

Advance flash
Thornhill: Electrical interactions with Deep Impact may be slight, but they should be measurable if NASA will look for them. 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.
see [ 2005 July 03]

The "confirmed" (which is the lie, Sol88) result:

Result
What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose.
see [ 2005 July 07]

The result in the real world was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus according to NASA.

Who would have thought that hitting a ball of ice and dust with a projectile travelling at thousands of kilometers an hour would produce energy :rolleyes! Well every one with a high school education would! The scientists who do experiments where projectiles travelling at high speed impact with various objects certainly know this.

A repeat of the lie about ROCK being found on Temple 1, Sol88.


It looks like I will have to update The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. because there is another lie about Deep Impact - quote mining of NASA Scientists Fete Bull's Eye Shot On Distant Comet.
Here is more context to what they mine:

Scientists said preliminary data showed that the impact provoked two successive flashes, which could mean the comet's surface and depth are composed of two different matters.

"What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose. We may have been able to detect some structural response to the impact," mission co-investigator Pete Shultz, of Brown University.

(The Thunderbolts quote in italics)
The quote with more context makes it clear that the flashes happened on or after the impact !

 

[tusenfem]

Realty Check had a crack at it and is still quite blind to the contradiction in the statement by Jessica Sunshine and the paper by Holger Sierks.

Please write an essay on what contradictions you see.
BTW it is a paper (abstract) by J-B Vincent, and not by H. Sierks.

 

[tusenfem]

followed by a delusion not about finding ice - MIDAS found ice .

I hope not!
I think you mean MIRO.

 

[paladin17]

I hope not!
I think you mean MIRO.

I think he meant MUPUS.

 

[Sol88]

Sorry 'ol mate, but thinking that your wishes or impatience take priority over 20 years of hard work by scientists is totally off topic, Sol88.

There may be "bright pixel saturated discreet regions at the source of the jets" - pixels tend to saturate when the instrument is pointed at bright stuff e.g. the sources of jets!

Any idea that these would have anything to do with the debunked eclectic comet idea is a delusion - those areas will not be rocks or electrical discharges r EDM! They will be pixels saturated because the instrument is looking at something bright enough to saturate the pixels.

Access to Rosetta data is a blog explaining how reasonable it is that people who spend decades making Rosetta work should get a short period of time to process the data that they were responsible for collecting. It points out the obvious - that an "open data" policy is an exception for a mission rather than the norm.
Some of comments are asking for more releases mainly for publicity purposes or wishes for instant gratification.

Thanks for that Reality Check.

What's the bright stuff or more correctly "stuff shining thru" at the jet source???

This is a primary prediction of the ECH model which was confirmed by the pictures returned from Tempel 1.

When the OSIRIS team finally release an image of the jet source on 67P at a high enough resolution to be able to resolve these pixel saturated discreet areas with no detection of any sort of ice, surface or subsurface.

until then you will not being willing to entertain any other idea than the preconceived paradigm of the dirtysnowball.

There are more than enough anomalies with the data already returned from all comets missions to date to throw serious doubt on all mainstream comet models.

Interesting read here

 

[Sol88]

Well no we cannot see inside the nucleus, Sol88, since the cliffs are the surface of the nucleus ! And the repeat of the Thunderbolts delusion that jets come from exposed ice!

<snip>
Full of holes and contradictions.

Another possibility is transport of inner system dust outward by solar radiation or a strong solar wind.

that's a good one.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 0/12

 

[Sol88]

I think he meant MUPUS.

I think your correct, Paladinn17 and I believe that hit some thing harder than the instrument was designed for and to save face, they've played it safe and called it extremely hard sintered ice, like the stuff the snow plough leaves behind in winter.

ECH said that rosetta and Philae would probably find rock and well...the rest is just parroting what's already out there.

Like these Thunderbolt's predictions

Significant things to look for as the Rosetta mission continues:

No evidence of subsurface ice at the sources of the jets;
Virtually no interstellar dust, the second component of the “dirty snowball” theory;
Discovery of minerals on the nucleus that are typical of planetary surfaces within the
Habitable zone of the Sun; characteristic concentration of plasma jet activity eating away at the cliffs of elevated terrain and the margins of well-defined depressions;
Measurable retreat of active cliff regions in the wake of this activity; and
The presence of unexpected electric fields within the coma and/or close to the comet nucleus, possibly even disrupting the anticipated landing on the surface. This could occur on or after touch down because the sharp metallic edges of the spacecraft make an ideal focus for a diffuse plasma discharge, which would disrupt communications and possibly interfere with spacecraft electronics.

next post, let's go through what's been found so far.

 

[paladin17]

I think your correct, Paladinn17 and I believe that hit some thing harder than the instrument was designed for and to save face, they've played it safe and called it extremely hard sintered ice, like the stuff the snow plough leaves behind in winter.

ECH said that rosetta and Philae would probably find rock and well...the rest is just parroting what's already out there.

Unfortunately, their instrument (MUPUS) was built only for ~ 6 MPa (and the field measurements on the comet suggest that the lower limit of actual pressure was only 1 MPa), and as some people correctly mentioned above, this is well below the compressive strength of ices and even snow at very low temperatures.
Undoubtedly the people who were making this thing 20 years ago were severely mistaken about the mechanical properties of the cometary surface - this penetrator probably could challenge only some ridiculously fragile material.
So unfortunately we cannot conclude yet that this was not ice: the pressure of the penetrator was simply too small. I'd say it could have been almost anything.

Some guy at the AGU suggested that at least some mechanical properties could be taken from the characteristics of the first bounce of the lander. But I'm not sure that anyone would even bother doing that, since everyone there are convinced that it is "sintered ice".