Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Lies about a paper being related to jets

related to Jets

8 November 2016 Sol88: Lies about a paper being related to jets.

As any one who can read can understand the paper is about Earth's and CO2-rich atmospheres.
AE21A-08: Scaling of Dielectric Breakdown Thresholds in Earth's and CO2-rich atmospheres: Impact for Predictions of Extraterrestrial Transient Luminous Events and Lightning Discharges

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: An irrelevant half-lie about lightning and mainstream science

i.e mainstream science can't even work out how lightning here on Earth is generated!!!

8 November 2016 Sol88: An irrelevant half-lie about lightning and mainstream science.
Mainstream science knows how lightning is generated. The exact processes behind charge separation in clouds were unknown in 1993 (the wiki reference !).

 

[Reality Check]

Rosetta in the Rearview: What Have We Learned?

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks JT

You're welcome, Sol88.

Let's start by getting the lay of the land straight, the Thunderbolts team planted a seed which I watered and watched grow

So you are close to the EU core team then?

into something so threatening to the mainstream that it's actually quite funny watching the reactions from posters here!

(bold added)

Really?

AFAIK, the only ISF member who posts here who is also actively involved in research on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (or any comet) is tusenfem, and his reaction is, IMHO, about as far from finding what you posted as "threatening" as it is possible to imagine.

So the information I seek is from behind closed doors like the AGU fall meeting NOT from the fantastic team over on The Thunderbolts Project

Isn't it true that the program (list of presentations) at meetings like the AGU is public? And that most, if not all, such presentations end up as papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals such as Icarus?

But more important, isn't it true that the data from missions like Rosetta is publicly available?

Given both these - please comment if either is incorrect - what is it that you seek, specifically, that you couldn't get already (or after a few months)?

Re-reading what David Talbott - who is most certainly a core EU team member - wrote here (thanks for reposting it, jonesdave116), I'm curious to learn how the team is doing, in its quantitative analyses of the Rosetta data. In particular, it would seem that the data from Rosetta are inconsistent with just about every one of Dave T's items (do you agree?), so what's their approach now?

Finally, do you know if the EU team are using Bayesian or frequentist (or perhaps both) statistical analyses of the Rosetta data?

 

[Reality Check]

... from the fantastic team over on The Thunderbolts Project

And what do we see from this "fantastic" team on that web page?

• The idiocy of "science by YouTube video" .
• A "physicist" Eugene Bagashov being stupid enough to be in the Thunderbolts Project videos.
  Specifically the stupidity that New Horizon observations of Pluto that are explained by mainstream physics can be explained by Thunderbolts delusions.
• Lies and delusions about GRBs in "Double Layer Flare-up".
• A delusion of "currents sent bolides of plasma jetting through the atmosphere, blow-torching the ground below into craters and mountainous blisters" on Earth.

When I went looking for more about Eugene Bagashov and the electric universe I found a truly deluded Thunderbolts web page from 2015 and the implication that Bagashov is as deluded as the other Thunderbolts proponents - a video with the lie "that the observed movements in the Universe cannot be created with the gravitational force alone". One of the b biggest successes of cosmology is that the observed movements in the Universe can be explained with the gravitational force alone from dark matter and a non-zero cosmological constant (dark energy).

Eugene Bagashov shares the delusion that comets are rocks!

 

[jonesdave116]

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Despite 2 years worth of observations from an in-situ spacecraft, these cr*tins do not want to let it go.
Perhaps, quoting papers, Sol could walk us through this mythology based rubbish, and tell us how it all joins up? Yes?
Perhaps go back to the original garbage written by T & T? How has it gone?
A slight clue here; it hasn't! It was the rubbish that we all told you it would be, years ago. Eh?
Would you like me to repost the scientific genius DTs post again, regarding what we would find at this comet? Trust me, that will not go well.

Stick to mythology, Sol. Science is way out of your (and T & Ts) league.

 

[Sol88]

wipes tears from eyes from ROLF'ing

When you can reconcile the MUPUS data with the CONCERT data then maybe we can talk science...

The probe then started to hammer itself into the subsurface, but was unable to make more than a few millimetres of progress even at the highest power level of the hammer motor.

“If we compare the data with laboratory measurements, we think that the probe encountered a hard surface with strength comparable to that of solid ice,” says Tilman Spohn, principal investigator for MUPUS.

ok a HARD comparable to that of solid ice... right got it...

The Philae lander provides a unique opportunity to investigate the internal structure of a comet nucleus, providing information about its formation and evolution in the early solar system. We present Comet Nucleus Sounding Experiment by Radiowave Transmission (CONSERT) measurements of the interior of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. From the propagation time and form of the signals, the upper part of the "head" of 67P is fairly homogeneous on a spatial scale of tens of meters. CONSERT also reduced the size of the uncertainty of Philae's final landing site down to approximately 21 by 34 square meters. The average permittivity is about 1.27, suggesting that this region has a volumetric dust/ice ratio of 0.4 to 2.6 and a porosity of 75 to 85%. The dust component may be comparable to that of carbonaceous chondrites.

Whoa...really.

Seems you assume the general public and scientists must all be gullible.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Lies about us having to reconcile the surface and interior of 67P

When you can reconcile the MUPUS data with the CONCERT data then maybe we can talk science.

When a cult follower stops supporting delusions and lies and wasting our time with lies we might talk about the science - not the delusions.

8 November 2016 Sol88: Lies about us having to reconcile a "dust covered ice" surface and a porous "dust/ice" interior.
The main lie is highlighting porosity which is not tensile strength.
The second lie is citing CONCERT data showing that comets are not rocks ("a volumetric dust/ice ratio of 0.4 to 2.6 and porosity of 75 to 85%" - his highlighting!) while still supporting the delusion that comets are rocks.
The third lie is about Philae settles in dust-covered ice (18/11/2014) which does that reconciliation:

Looking at the results of the thermal mapper and the probe together, the team have made the preliminary assessment that the upper layers of the comet’s surface consist of dust of 10–20 cm thickness, overlaying mechanically strong ice or ice and dust mixtures.

At greater depths, the ice likely becomes more porous, as the overall low density of the nucleus – determined by instruments on the Rosetta orbiter – suggests.

Half a year later we have confirmation of the higher porosity in Properties of the 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko interior revealed by CONSERT radar (31 July 2015)

1. 29 August 2016 Sol88: Repeating a lie does not make it true. You know that the electrostatic transport of dust across airless bodies is not anything to do with sublimation.
2. The multiple lies about Static electricity may transport dust across airless planetary bodies.
3. 29 August 2016 Sol88: A lie about data showing an electrical discharge screams your persistent delusions about comets !
4. 29 August 2016 Sol88: The stupidity of a "The effect of surface topography on the lunar photoelectron sheath and electrostatic dust transport" paper.
5. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A lie about collimated jets since there is no such problem, e.g. they can issue from pits which any rational person knows collimates them !
6. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A delusion that the 19 Feb. outburst issued from an area where it was impossible for it to be collimated (which it was not !).
7. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A delusion that the Sun does not exist ! Sunlight ionizes gas.
8. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A delusion that a landslide possibly triggering the outburst magically makes it impossible for it to be collimated.
9. 30 August 2016 Sol88: The delusion that an outburst described as clouds is collimated jets
10. 30 August 2016 Sol88: Repeated delusion that electrostatic transport of dust has anything to do with his debunked delusions about comets
11. 8 November 2016 Sol88: Still an unthinking cult follower of the Thunderbolts delusion of an electric comet.
12. 8 November 2016 Sol88: Lies about a paper being related to jets.
13. 8 November 2016 Sol88: An irrelevant half-lie about lightning and mainstream science.

 

[tusenfem]

AFAIK, the only ISF member who posts here who is also actively involved in research on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (or any comet) is tusenfem, and his reaction is, IMHO, about as far from finding what you posted as "threatening" as it is possible to imagine.

I have not seen anything threatening by Sol, I only see quote mining and coming to spurious conclusions. E.g. (not my field) the hard surface from MUPUS and the GLOBAL porosity by CONCERT are not at all mutually exclusive.

Strangely enough I could easily push a metal pole into the ground in my garden, but it was unable to do the same when I was on a mountain top.

Isn't it true that the program (list of presentations) at meetings like the AGU is public? And that most, if not all, such presentations end up as papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals such as Icarus?

Yes, the presentations at the AGU, EGU and the upcoming comets meeting next week (http://comets2016toulouse.com/) are all (well almost all) going to turn up as papers. There are special issues of Science, MNRAS, Astronomy & Astrophysics full of papers on both orbiter and lander science.

But more important, isn't it true that the data from missions like Rosetta is publicly available?

Some of the Rosetta data is already available on Platenary Science Archive, and there is a project with money for taking care of the archiving of the data. But it takes time and effort to correctly calibrate the data and putting them into the correct format for PSA.

Beside that, there is also all the data of the other cometary missions, which are all available on PSA or its NASA counterpart Planetary Data System which can all be used freely. Heck, I used the VEGA 1, 2 and Giotto data at Halley to write a paper last year!

I have said this before, but I doubt there is going to be any change, the data are there, you only need to download them and use some program (matlab, idl or excell for all I care) to analyse them.

 

[Sol88]

and looking forward to it!

Then we can start again, weeeeee........

 

[Sol88]

But more important, isn't it true that the data from missions like Rosetta is publicly available?
Some of the Rosetta data is already available on Platenary Science Archive, and there is a project with money for taking care of the archiving of the data. But it takes time and effort to correctly calibrate the data and putting them into the correct format for PSA.

Beside that, there is also all the data of the other cometary missions, which are all available on PSA or its NASA counterpart Planetary Data System which can all be used freely. Heck, I used the VEGA 1, 2 and Giotto data at Halley to write a paper last year!

I have said this before, but I doubt there is going to be any change, the data are there, you only need to download them and use some program (matlab, idl or excell for all I care) to analyse them.

RPC Langmuir Probe (RPCLAP) (the good stuff), Data from 2010????

 

[tusenfem]

RPC Langmuir Probe (RPCLAP) (the good stuff), Data from 2010????

Searching on a website must be difficult for you.
If on PSA I go to RPCLAP I find the calibrated data for 2014 and up to march 2015.
So don't talk nonsense.

 

[Sol88]

Searching on a website must be difficult for you.
If on PSA I go to RPCLAP I find the calibrated data for 2014 and up to march 2015.
So don't talk nonsense.

Thanks for the link help Tusenfem!

 

[Sol88]

I have not seen anything threatening by Sol, I only see quote mining and coming to spurious conclusions. E.g. (not my field) the hard surface from MUPUS and the GLOBAL porosity by CONCERT are not at all mutually exclusive.

Strangely enough I could easily push a metal pole into the ground in my garden, but it was unable to do the same when I was on a mountain top.


SNIP

What the hell was that???

The MUPUS team EXPECTED ICE instead they hit WELL CONSOLIDATED material. (ROCK)

but the comet is KNOWN to be 70%-80% Vacuum!

Unfortunately, unless you can come with an outstanding explanation they two data sets are not at all mutually exclusive.

You got yourself a fluffy dust ball that's hard as rock

I like to hear from you, how do you picture the inside structure of a comet if, as you believe, all those different types of ice and dust are mixed together with 80% empty space (vacuum)?

 

[Ziggurat]

What the hell was that???

The MUPUS team EXPECTED ICE instead they hit WELL CONSOLIDATED material. (ROCK)

Solid ice is well consolidated.

but the comet is KNOWN to be 70%-80% Vacuum!

The only mystery is why you think that a comet being rock makes that better instead of worse. Here's the thing: there are rather obvious mechanisms by which a solid ice crust can form on the surface of porous ice. It happens all the time on earth, and the cause is the same: periodic solar heating and refreezing. But there are no mechanisms for similar solid crust formation around porous rock.

Unfortunately, unless you can come with an outstanding explanation they two data sets are not at all mutually exclusive.

The explanation has been given many, many times before. You are making an assumption about uniformity which is entirely without justification. Remove that assumption, and the imagined contradiction disappears too.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: A "ROCK" lie and a lie abut porosity measurements

The MUPUS team EXPECTED ICE instead they hit WELL CONSOLIDATED material. (ROCK)

10 November 2016 Sol88: A "ROCK" lie and a lie abut porosity measurements.

The persistent delusion about comets being rocks leading to lies is well documented.

The other lie is "comet is KNOWN to be 70%-80% Vacuum".
The interior of comet 67P has been MEASURED to be 70%-80% Vacuum !
The surface ices have an UNMEASURED porosity because the instruments that would have measured them were not deployed. The ices strength was higher than the MUPUS hammer was deigned for and that suggests sintered ice and low porosity.

Thermal and mechanical properties of the near-surface layers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Repeated inability to understand the words "surface" and "interior"

Unfortunately, unless you can come with an outstanding explanation they two data sets are not at all mutually exclusive.

A restatement of 8 November 2016 Sol88: Lies about us having to reconcile a "dust covered ice" surface and a porous "dust/ice" interior.

10 November 2016 Sol88: Repeated inability to understand the words "surface" and "interior" !

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: The delusion that rock is "70%-80% Vacuum"

but the comet is KNOWN to be 70%-80% Vacuum!

10 November 2016 Sol88: The delusion that the rock (as in asteroids) he thinks comets are is "70%-80% Vacuum" !

 

[Sol88]

Solid ice is well consolidated.



The only mystery is why you think that a comet being rock makes that better instead of worse. Here's the thing: there are rather obvious mechanisms by which a solid ice crust can form on the surface of porous ice. It happens all the time on earth, and the cause is the same: periodic solar heating and refreezing. But there are no mechanisms for similar solid crust formation around porous rock.



The explanation has been given many, many times before. You are making an assumption about uniformity which is entirely without justification. Remove that assumption, and the imagined contradiction disappears too.

So you are telling me the "well consolidated" material we CAN SEE on the surface of the comet is ICE?

Cliffs. Fracture, layering etc etc....on a fluffydustcovered "ices" with upto 80% empty space??? whooboy

 

[Sol88]

10 November 2016 Sol88: The delusion that the rock (as in asteroids) he thinks comets are is "70%-80% Vacuum" !

You funny!