Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[Sol88]

This is the continuation thread of the original Electric Comet Theory thread found HERE. The split point is arbitrary, and please feel free to quote from the previous thread in this one.

Posted By: Agatha

Sol88 isn't even picking nits, he's pretending to pick nits. His posts all sound like this:



I mean, "picking nits" would at least require some sort of coherent statement. "Rosetta found X <link> which contradicts prediction Y made by Z <link>". Or "Yesterday Rosetta said 4 g/cm^3 and today they said 4.1 g/cm^3". Or "Rosetta replaced the image in that press release with a new one." That'd be picking nits. Sol88 can't even manage that.

Nit pick??? data says 67P is fluffy like snow according to the density and MUPUS says hard as (sintered ice) or rock??? as well as the lander "bouncing" off the surface.

CONCERT says no voids.

You have dust levitating and being transported by electric fields but feel the need to invoke fluidization by gas escaping.

Yo have CO, CO2 and H20 being produced in the same location during different times of the local day from a comet made of rock.

and it looks like rock (including crystallised silicates, clay and carbonates) with no surface ice detected, "How did clay and carbonates form in frozen comets?"...mainstream brushed over that chestnut.

Major problems reconciling the problem of heat transportation below the dust layer to start "sublimation"

Dust that "falls" apart but towering cliffs on the surface.


but yeah the dirtysnowball is the best guess mainstream could come up with.

As the posters on the ROSETTA BLOG site are asking, some non EU proponents are calling the standard theory into question.

and i think that's a good thing, we need to ask those hard questions.

The mainstream went to the comet with well defined preconceived ideas and have been surprised at every turn but to think of another theory is taboo.

AND

It's not my job to prove to you the ELECTRIC COMET is correct you can make your own mind up based on the multitude of data not agreeing with the standard model. If you think they're dirtysnowballs, dirtysnowballs they are.

 

[thedopefishlives]

It's not my job to prove to you the ELECTRIC COMET is correct you can make your own mind up based on the multitude of data not agreeing with the standard model. If you think they're dirtysnowballs, dirtysnowballs they are.

That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works.

Here's your problem: You have this "multitude of data", but none of it proves electric space rocks. All it does is disagree slightly with predictions that were made in a time before hard data existed - which was the entire point of sending a spacecraft out to investigate the comet in the first place. Now that we can refine the models, they STILL don't point to an electric space rock. You're welcome to believe they are electric space rocks, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Sol88]

Here's your problem: You have this "multitude of data", but none of it proves electric space rocks. All it does is disagree slightly with predictions that were made in a time before hard data existed - which was the entire point of sending a spacecraft out to investigate the comet in the first place. Now that we can refine the models, they STILL don't point to an electric space rock. You're welcome to believe they are electric space rocks, but that doesn't make it so.

Just this simple piece of dicordent data is enough to raise serous doubts about the standard model.

Results (12) This means that the stuff is really hard! A very interesting finding, not visible from orbit!

Results (15) Surface must be >2 MPa hard! The comet remains surprising bizarre and uncooperative

LINK

“We found that the dust particles released first when the comet started to become active again are ‘fluffy’. They don’t contain ice, but they do contain a lot of sodium. We have found the parent material of interplanetary dust particles,” says lead author Rita Schulz of ESA’s Scientific Support Office.

LINK


So what's the mainstream fudge for this data.

It's a hard fluffy gasball????

 

[LSSBB]

Just this simple piece of dicordent data is enough to raise serous doubts about the standard model.



LINK

LINK


So what's the mainstream fudge for this data.

It's a hard fluffy gasball????

Does hardness = density?

 

[rwguinn]

Does hardness = density?

Lead--Steel
gold--Aluminum
Hmmmm. A trend?

Nope. Watched a guy make a hammer out of Mercury, with the aid of a little LN₂

 

[Sol88]

Does hardness = density?

Yeah doesn't wash though.

You tell me what known substance on the comet could have the density less than water (He said the interior is now thought to be analogous to 'ash, cigarette ash or super-dry powder snow.') and harder than 2mpa??


Who's telling porkys?? the MUPUS team or me 'ol mate Holger??


Which is a far cry from

All it does is disagree slightly with predictions that were made in a time before hard data existed

You'll have to take your foot off the exaggerator! That's no slight disagreement with predictions, that's fatal. Not one prediction, from the mainstream point of view, has held out. They are morphing into a totally different model that now incorporates a lot of what the EU mob have been banging on about for some time.

I guess that's what science does but why trumpet it and puff up your chest that you know what comets are???? Ambition the short film is embarrassing to watch now, really cringe worthy. We know this we know that but in reality it was just a guess that turned out to be dead wrong.

and whilst I acknowledge there are paper on comets and plasma/electrical interaction they played no part in ANY prediction put up on a science education website NASA,ESA etc

Seems it was a SURPRISE for the big bangers, the original creationists.

 

[tusenfem]

some science results presented also via youtube from my institute:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbCn_a9NTk8Qj-E0Jw29q4Q

 

[dasmiller]

Yeah doesn't wash though.

You tell me what known substance on the comet could have the density less than water (He said the interior is now thought to be analogous to 'ash, cigarette ash or super-dry powder snow.') and harder than 2mpa??

I was unaware that we had hardness measurements of the interior.

 

[phunk]

Nit pick??? data says 67P is fluffy like snow according to the density and MUPUS says hard as (sintered ice) or rock??? as well as the lander "bouncing" off the surface.

Is it that hard for you to imagine that something as large as a comet has different properties in different areas? That it could have a solid surface in some areas and have deep layers of dust in others?

 

[LSSBB]

Yeah doesn't wash though.

You tell me what known substance on the comet could have the density less than water (He said the interior is now thought to be analogous to 'ash, cigarette ash or super-dry powder snow.') and harder than 2mpa??


Who's telling porkys?? the MUPUS team or me 'ol mate Holger??


Which is a far cry from You'll have to take your foot off the exaggerator! That's no slight disagreement with predictions, that's fatal. Not one prediction, from the mainstream point of view, has held out. They are morphing into a totally different model that now incorporates a lot of what the EU mob have been banging on about for some time.

I guess that's what science does but why trumpet it and puff up your chest that you know what comets are???? Ambition the short film is embarrassing to watch now, really cringe worthy. We know this we know that but in reality it was just a guess that turned out to be dead wrong.

and whilst I acknowledge there are paper on comets and plasma/electrical interaction they played no part in ANY prediction put up on a science education website NASA,ESA etc

Seems it was a SURPRISE for the big bangers, the original creationists.

Fail, try again.

Does hardness = density? Yes, or no?

 

[LSSBB]

Is it that hard for you to imagine that something as large as a comet has different properties in different areas? That it could have a solid surface in some areas and have deep layers of dust in others?

That was to be my next point. What is it more like, a cueball, or an egg?

 

[dasmiller]

That was to be my next point. What is it more like, a cueball, or an egg?

If you* ever live in an area that periodically has a lot of snow lying around, sometimes day/night warm/cold cycle will create a surprisingly strong crust on top of a lot of light, fluffy snow. The crust can sometimes be strong enough to walk on, but if you break through it, it's still light, fluffy snow underneath.

The comet does, in fact, go through warm/cold cycles, so the possibility of a crust troubles me not at all.

I don't whether the mechanism would be the same.

*the generic 'you', not LSSBB in particular

 

[Dancing David]

If you* ever live in an area that periodically has a lot of snow lying around, sometimes day/night warm/cold cycle will create a surprisingly strong crust on top of a lot of light, fluffy snow. The crust can sometimes be strong enough to walk on, but if you break through it, it's still light, fluffy snow underneath.

The comet does, in fact, go through warm/cold cycles, so the possibility of a crust troubles me not at all.

I don't whether the mechanism would be the same.

*the generic 'you', not LSSBB in particular

Yes, this and plow walls are something that Sol88 is unfamiliar with, or snowfall with freezing rain on top, plow walls on top of fluffy snow.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

It has occurred to me over this winter that watching parking lot glaciers respond to insolation with and without a dust cap might be fruitful grad student research.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If you* ever live in an area that periodically has a lot of snow lying around, sometimes day/night warm/cold cycle will create a surprisingly strong crust on top of a lot of light, fluffy snow. The crust can sometimes be strong enough to walk on, but if you break through it, it's still light, fluffy snow underneath.

The comet does, in fact, go through warm/cold cycles, so the possibility of a crust troubles me not at all.

I don't whether the mechanism would be the same.

*the generic 'you', not LSSBB in particular

Exactly this, the fields where I take the dog for a walk are like this at the moment

 

[Sol88]

Why the split?

 

[LSSBB]

Why the split?

Split between what? Hardness and density?

What is hardness? Look it up, if you don't know.

What is density? Look it up, if you don't know.

What's harder, lead or steel? What's denser, lead or steel?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Why the split?

Long threads cause forum performance issues.

 

[Dancing David]

Consult your doctor to see if your heart is strong enough for Thread Split

 

[ferd burfle]

Just this simple piece of dicordent data is enough to raise serous doubts about the standard model.

Only in your imagination, Sol. Real scientists see contradiction as an opportunity to do a definitive experiment that will advance our understanding. There's a timeless Niels Bohr quote: "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress."

You claim to know how to breed a more beautiful and hardy orchid; why do you just stand outside the greenhouse throwing rocks at the glass?