Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[tusenfem]

Thank you Jonedave116, I'd owe you one if I'd have something in return, which unfortunately is just an inquiring mind.



WoW!!!

Are you prepared to have a crack at any of those, JD116?

Jean-Pierre Bibring proposition that comets are not but more like

Whoops!!!

He nearly said they were rock, albeit fluffy rock, but NOT much of the mass is h2O,CO2,CO ices as was EXPECTED... which segway's nicely into A HIGH DUST-TO-WATER RATIO, ACTIVE AREAS HARD TO FIND, 5 NO DISTRIBUTED WATER SOURCES, 7 THERMO-PHYSICAL MODELS FAIL, 10 67P PLASMA to name just a couple that we all have been banging on about for 7 odd years now.

But NONE are are problem if as the ELECTRIC COMET postulates, they are ROCKS discharging in the radial electric field of the ELECTRIC SUN....but hey feel free to fish for some grant funding and sit around scratching your nuts wondering how you are going to reconcile with the data now at hand.

Love to be able to attend one of this cometary get together's!!!

but alas, it's not to be.

it is only people like you who insist on whipples 1950 idea

 

[jonesdave116]

Something else just occurred to me to ask Sol (or any EC proponent who wishes to answer);
We have seen numerous bright spots, some confirmed as being H2O, on the comet. Many of these are at the foot of cliffs or scarps. An example is labelled as spot 6 in the paper;

Detection of exposed H2O ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Barucci, M. A., et al, 2016
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.00551.pdf

Now, it seems obvious to me that such boulders have fallen from the cliff above. It also seems obvious, by definition, the the cliff itself must have ice below the surface, otherwise some of the boulders would not land 'icy side up', as it were. That icy side is obviously the face that was internal, i.e. not exposed until it broke away and fell.
Given that the boulders likely fell from the topmost part of the cliff, such as an overhang, then surely that is further confirmation, were it needed, that the close subsurface, at least in some areas, is rich in ice. Very bright ice. Which would also fit in with what was observed in the impact ejecta at Tempel 1. That is, ice that was pure enough to avoid sublimation for the duration of the observations at that comet:

The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1
Sunshine, J. M., et al, 2007
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3546.pdf

Detection of water ice grains after the DEEP IMPACT onto Comet 9P/Tempel 1
Schulz, R., et al, 2006
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2006/12/aahi281/aahi281.right.html

And also with the pure ice that was excavated by the CO2 jets at Hartley 2:

Water ice and dust in the innermost coma of comet 103P/Hartley 2
Protopapa, S., et al, 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.3382.pdf

I'm wondering what sort of mental gymnastics EC followers perform in their minds when they are confronted with such evidence? Obviously, the evidence must be in error, because scientific geniuses, such as Thornhill & Talbott, cannot possibly be wrong. I'm just wondering how their followers square it away with themselves.
I'm guessing that it is the mental equivalent of a 6 year old putting their fingers in their ears, and going "nanananananana, not listening, nanananana".......but I could be wrong.

 

[Sol88]

@JD116

you forgot the recession of icy cliffs on Tempel 1!!!

This erosion is caused by volatile substances evaporating away from the comet

???

So it's non argument...comets are ICEY dustballs! just look at all that bright WATER ice retreating...

Meanwhile...http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11589086#post11589086

 

[jonesdave116]

@JD116

you forgot the recession of icy cliffs on Tempel 1!!!
???

So it's non argument...comets are ICEY dustballs! just look at all that bright WATER ice retreating...

Meanwhile...http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11589086#post11589086

Yep, got nothing to do with Wal and Dave's BS, has it? Comets, as proven, starting in 1986, are, as Whipple said, just a bunch of ice and dust and organics and stuff.
Imagine, Whipple figured that stuff out in 1950! Wal and the other eejit were still getting it wrong in 2006!
Incredible what faith will do. Eh? I'd love to hear from one of these eejits as to why they believe the rubbish that they do.
Would make an interesting second degree!

 

[Sol88]

The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1
Sunshine, J. M., et al, 2007
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3546.pdf

Well, Jessica M. Sunshine needs to sit down and tell Marco Fulle,

(At perihelion and
just after, the dust-to-water mass ratio ranges from 6 to 100 (Fulle
et al. 2016). The dust-to-water ratio has been inferred by individual
particle detections by the GIADA and OSIRIS instruments (Rotundi
et al. 2015)

he's got the cart before the horse!!

Who's right Jonedave116???

"It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher," said SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). "The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven't materialized, at least not yet."

goes hand in hand with what Marco Fulle states and is at odds with Jessica M. Sunshine

 

[Sol88]

The fluffy dust particles detected by GIADA (Fulle et al. 2015),
which have the equivalent bulk density of air (<1 kgm−3) and sizes
up to a few mm, provide one of the most stringent constraints
selecting the working model of 67P’s origin. According to Fulle
et al. (2015), the fluffy aggregates are charged by the secondary
electron flux from Rosetta, and then fragmented and decelerated
by the electrostatic interaction between the fragments and Rosetta,
down to speeds of a few cm s−1. At these speeds, the fragments
provide exactly the kinetic energy ranging from 0.2 to 20 keV of
some electron bursts observed by the RPC/IES experiment (Burch
et al. 2015),

...

LASP research points to electrostatic dust transport in reshaping airless planetary bodies

n addition to single-sized dust particles, lofted large aggregates showed that electrostatic processes may be responsible for the detection by the Rosetta mission of fluffy dust particles released from the surface of comet 67P.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Well, Jessica M. Sunshine needs to sit down and tell Marco Fulle, he's got the cart before the horse!!

Who's right Jonedave116???

goes hand in hand with what Marco Fulle states and is at odds with Jessica M. Sunshine

Not Thunderbolts, that's for certain.

 

[jonesdave116]

OK, as threatened promised, here is the first part of a particular take on a scientifically illiterate bunch of gubbins. This is the post by a 'member' called Dave Talbott. No scientific qualifications. Essentially, just a woo merchant;

1.) Likelihood of a hot and dry surface ("hot," as in the familiar lexicon of comet science).

There have been no reports of anomalous temperatures reported at this comet. Nor were there at Tempel 1 and Hartley 2.
And I'm not sure what is meant by 'dry'. No rivers? Lakes? If it means that there would be no ice detected on, within and below the surface, then that is obviously wrong. More of which anon.

Comet 67P: Thermal Maps and Local Properties as Derived from Rosetta/VIRTIS data
Tosi, F., et al, 2015
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015EGUGA..1711625T (conference poster)

The temperature, thermal inertia, roughness and color of the nuclei of Comets 103P/Hartley 2 and 9P/Tempel 1
Groussin, O., et al, 2012
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...9PTempel_1/links/02bfe5137699829f03000000.pdf

2.) No layers of ice exposed beneath the surface, despite the requirements of standard theory.

By definition, if the layers are beneath the surface, then they are not exposed! 'Standard theory' does not require the ice to be permanently exposed. We've known that for a long time. The ice is mostly below the dust covered surface. As the heat penetrates through the surface layer, ice will sublimate through the dust and organics. MIRO detected ice below the surface at 67P. Ice was excavated from the Tempel 1 impact. Solid ice was excavated by CO2 jets at Hartley 2. Plenty of surface ice has been detected at 67P.

Millimeter and submillimeter observations of comet 67P/C-G with the MIRO instrument
Hofstadter, M., et al, 2015
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EPSC2015/EPSC2015-261.pdf (conference poster)

The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1
Sunshine, J. et al, 2007
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3546.pdf

Detection of water ice grains after the Deep Impact onto Comet 9P/Tempel 1
Schulz, R., et al, 2006
http://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~stuwe/MyPapers/AuAv448pL53y2006.pdf

Water ice and dust in the innermost coma of comet 103P/Hartley 2
Protopapa, S., et al, 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.3382.pdf

The 67P nucleus composition and temporal variations observed by the OSIRIS cameras onboard Rosetta
Fornasier, S., et al, 2015
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015DPS....4750006F (conference paper)

3.) No ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active.

Exposed water ice has been seen to sublimate as it emerges from shadow. There is also a correlation between detected icy material and dust jets and outbursts.

The diurnal cycle of water ice on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
De Sanctis, M.C. et al, 2015
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v525/n7570/abs/nature14869.html (paywalled)

Detection of exposed H2O ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as observed by Rosetta OSIRIS and VIRTIS instruments (in the conclusions)
Barucci, M., et al, 2016
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.00551.pdf

4.) Electric discharge as the essential contributor to the comet's increasing activity.

No need to comment on the lack of results in order to deny something that nobody (of any note, or intelligence) believed possible in the first place.

5.) Abundance of unexplained rocky debris on the surface, as seen on asteroids, including sharp edged boulders exhibiting no ices.

As shown in the Barucci paper in part 3, above, there have been boulders identified as being icy. Nothing unexplained about the boulders. They mostly fall from cliffs. Some may be ejected, and fall back in other areas. Also:

OSIRIS observations of meter-sized exposures of H2O ice at the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and interpretation using laboratory experiments
Pommerol, A., et al, 2015
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2015/11/aa25977-15/aa25977-15.html

6.) Visible electrical erosion of the surface in the fashion of electrical etching of surface materials and electric discharge machining (edm).

I refer to the answer I gave to part 4. I've asked this question of EU acolytes before, and never got an answer - how are you getting EDM to work at a comet? Or any other astronomical body? Total nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_discharge_machining

7.) Surface electrochemically transformed and burned black by this discharge activity, as in laboratory experiments.

I refer again to the answer to part 4. How are you getting electrochemistry to do anything at a comet? What discharge activity? The surface is dark due to being covered by organics. Mind you, we'd known that since Halley.

REFRACTORY AND SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS AT THE SURFACE OF COMET 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO: INSIGHTS FROM THE VIRTIS/ROSETTA IMAGING SPECTROMETER
Quirico, E., et al, 2016
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001910351600097X (paywalled)

The organic component in dust from comet Halley as measured by the PUMA mass spectrometer on board Vega 1
Kissel, J. & Krueger, F. R., 1987
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v326/n6115/abs/326755a0.html

 

[jonesdave116]

What is your problem Sol? Being stupid? This is one of the pictures that the con artists Thornhill and Talbott didn't show you:

What, in your deluded state, do you think that is? Strewth mate, it's a shed load of ice. Eh? Sorry mate, you have signed up to a load of b*ll*cks, and you are now paying the price for believing such b*ll*cks.
If you haven't figured it out already, then I'll say it straight: Thornhill and Talbott are con men. End of story. Need any more help?

 

[jonesdave116]

goes hand in hand with what Marco Fulle states and is at odds with Jessica M. Sunshine

Where did that happen, SFB? What did they actually detect at Tempel 1, SFB? How does it alter what Fulle has said, SFB? Or what Sunshine et al detected, SFB?
Please explain.

 

[jonesdave116]

And, to carry on with the obviously scientifically illiterate musings of a former poster here:

8.) Focused glow discharge enigmatically moving across the surface during the course of the Rosetta observations.

Again I must refer to the response to part 4. How are you getting a glow discharge at a comet? More silliness.

9.) Useful comparisons of this activity to the moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus.

See part 4. Again. The plumes at Io are due to volcanoes, as has been observed. The plumes at Enceladus are H2O mostly, as has been observed. And even flown through.

Volcanism on Io: Estimation of eruption parameters from Galileo NIMS data
Davies, A.G., 2003
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001JE001509/full

Understanding the escape of water from Enceladus
Burger, M.H., et al, 2007
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006JA012086/full

10.) Electric fields configuring and reconfiguring layers of dust on the surface, despite the absence of an atmosphere.

There is an atmosphere - it's called a coma. However, I have not heard of any dust reconfiguration due to electric fields. Where are they coming from? There is the possibility of electrostatic dust movement, as proposed by mainstream scientists for some years. However, this could only happen when the solar wind has access to the surface, and it is hard to see how it would be distinguished from dust movement due to fallback from dust lofted by sublimation.

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity
Nordheim, T.A., et al, 2015
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003206331500238X

11.) Removal of “astonishing,” complex crystalline molecules from the surface, with comparisons to materials on planets and moons, likely including Mars or Earth, or both.

Not that I'm aware of. If referring to higher density grains, then they will have been around since the formation of the solar system.

12.) No appreciable “stardust,” the long-presumed primeval matter of comets.

The low density grains detected by the Rosetta instruments are believed to be primordial.

Aggregate dust particles at comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
Bentley, M.S., et al, 2016
http://dl.umsu.ac.ir/bitstream/Hannan/121967/1/2016 NATURE Volume 537 Issue 7618 September (47).pdf

13.) No support for the long-presumed "compositional zoning" in textbook solar system history and comet theory

No idea what this is about. Zones of what? The comet? That has obviously got different types of terrain. There is also a noticeable difference between the northern and southern hemispheres. And also the areas of H2O and CO2 outgassing.

14.) Useful comparison of dust configurations on the surface to formations seen in laboratory experiments with electric fields acting on layers of dust.

Just a repetition of a previous point. Again, I refer to the answer to point 4.

 

[jonesdave116]

So, let's carry on this investigation of unbelievable scientific illiteracy. Maybe an EU supporter can come back here, and explain how much of an education one needs to miss out on, before one is so terribly scientifically bereft?

15.) X-ray and ultraviolet emissions exceeding any scientific predictions just 20 years ago.

Why the reference to 20 years ago? No x-rays had been detected, nor predicted back then. They were first detected at Hyakutake in 1996. It has long been known that this is from charge exchange between the solar wind heavy ions and the cometary neutrals. It is narrow line emission. The individual ions responsible can be identified. Not sure what this has to do with anything.

X-Ray and Extreme Ultraviolet Emission from Comets
Lisse, C. M., et al, 2004
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.531.4751&rep=rep1&type=pdf

16.) Evidence for electrochemical production of hydroxyl and/or water by electrical action on surface silicates and clays.

Please refer to the answer to part 4. What 'electrochemistry' would this be?

17.) Evidence for production of water and/or hydroxyl by electrical activity in the coma.

What 'electrical activity' would be causing this to happen? Agreed, you can get OH from the breakdown of H2O, but how are you manufacturing H2O in the coma? Recombination from already broken down products of H2O? Not sure about that, and it is totally irrelevant anyway, given all the evidence for ice at comets. VIRTIS-M observed H2O within 0 - 500m of the nucleus (travel time ~ 1s).

WATER VAPOUR AND CARBON DIOXIDE IR EMISSIONS IN 67P/CG COMA: FIRST DETECTION BY ROSETTA/VIRTIS-M
De Sanctis, G., et al, 2015
http://elib.dlr.de/101324/1/2494.pdf

18.) Unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus.

Yay, got one! H- ions were discovered in the coma. Nothing to get too excited about though, as it was determined that they arose from double charge exchange of solar wind H+. I've heard of nothing similar to the detections of negative cometary ions reported from Halley in 1986. However, they were seemingly explained within the last few years.

Charge exchange in cometary coma: Discovery of H-
ions in the solar wind close to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Burch, J. L., et al, 2015
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064504/full

Negative ions in the coma of comet Halley
Chaizy, P., et al, 1991
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v349/n6308/abs/349393a0.html (paywalled)

Negative ion chemistry in the coma of comet 1P/Halley
Cordiner, M. A. & Charnley, S. B., 2013
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120016643.pdf

19.) Improbable hydrogen cloud gathered and held in place at the outer regions of the coma.

Not a prediction, as it has been seen many times. And what is improbable about it? H2O breaks down to O, H, H2 & OH. Even the EU hero Alfven knew that, decades ago!

As a different interpretation of the Lyman-alpha emission from comets, Lai proposed [21] thermalization and recombination of solar protons at collision with the cometary dust in the coma and tail, followed by diffusion and excitation of hydrogen in the observed Lyman-alpha halo. This view might seem to be contraindicated by the fact that roughly matching amounts of oxygen are deduced from observed OH emission. Most workers would take this as a support for the concept of water molecules as the source for both dissociated hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals.

ASTEROID AND COMET EXPLORATION
Arrhenius, G., Alfven, H., Fitzgerald, R., 1973
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730018994.pdf

20.) Additional electrochemical transactions in the coma adding to diverse chemistry, ranging from CO2 to methane, alcohol, cyanide, and more.

No, they were raised from the surface by Philae when it bounced.

Organic compounds on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko revealed by COSAC mass spectrometry
Goesmann, F., et al, 2015
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6247/aab0689 (paywalled)

21.) Relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts.

No, why would it? Rosetta and 67P have been through a few CMEs, solar flares etc. No 'flaring' was observed, either by the spacecraft or distant observations.

Space Weather at Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko Before its Perihelion
McKenna-Lawlor, S., et al, 2015
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11038-015-9479-5 (paywalled)

CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Edberg, N. J. T., et al, 2016
https://hal-univ-orleans.archives-ouvertes.fr/insu-01373682/document

Solar wind interaction with comet 67P: impacts of 2 corotating interaction regions
Edberg, N. J. T., et al, 2016
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/29078/2/781324_1_merged_1453380050.pdf

 

[jonesdave116]

Of course, any of the scientifically illiterate posters who have graced this thread are welcome to come back and question anything I've said about their lack of scientific knowledge, or qualifications - I'd welcome it with open arms!

 

[jonesdave116]

goes hand in hand with what Marco Fulle states and is at odds with Jessica M. Sunshine

Huh? How do you figure that out? Sunshine et al saw solid ice grains at Tempel 1. Yes? How is what Marco Fulle saying contradicting that??? Except in your mind?

 

[Reality Check]

you forgot the recession of icy cliffs on Tempel 1!!!

No one has forgotten the basic physics that sublimating ices more easily from areas exposed to the Sun's heat such as cliff faces, Sol88 !

Or that you can lie - it is not "WATER ice retreating" on the Tempel 1 cliffs. Water ice was only found in a few spots on the surface of Tempel 1 so this is a mixture of ices, e.g. CO2, methane and even water.

 

[jonesdave116]

No one has forgotten the basic physics that sublimating ices more easily from areas exposed to the Sun's heat such as cliff faces, Sol88 !

Or that you can lie - it is not "WATER ice retreating" on the Tempel 1 cliffs. Water ice was only found in a few spots on the surface of Tempel 1 so this is a mixture of ices, e.g. CO2, methane and even water.

Personally, RC, I think we're better off forgetting about it. Faith based beliefs take a lot of shifting. The amount of lies that they have been told by Thornhill & Talbott would take too long to overturn.
Lies they are though.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, Jessica M. Sunshine needs to sit down and tell Marco Fulle, he's got the cart before the horse!!

Well, you have to stop being ignorant about what you quote, Sol88.

The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1
Sunshine, J. M., et al, 2007
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3546.pdf

Like many papers this one was written by a several authors, not just Jessica M. Sunshine.

Tempel 1 is not 67P !
Comet interiors are not comet coma ! Not citing and quote mining to hide this is lying.
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

The dust-to-water mass ratio is a fundamental parameter governing cometary activity and constraining 67P’s origin. Data collected in the coma allow us to infer the average dust and water-vapour mass-loss rates from the sunlit nucleus surface. The dust-to-water mass ratio is provided by the ratio between these loss rates, so that it is defined at the sunlit nucleus surface. When computed in this way, the dust-to water ratio is a lower limit, because it does not take into account the contribution of the largest dust masses unable to leave the nucleus, or falling back to the nucleus due to gravity. The 67P nucleus has a dust-to-water mass ratio of six from 3.6 au to perihelion(Rotundietal.2015;Fulleetal.2016).At perihelion and just after, the dust-to-water mass ratio ranges from 6 to 100 (Fulle et al. 2016). The dust-to-water ratio has been inferred by individual particle detections by the GIADA and OSIRIS instruments (Rotundi et al. 2015). The 67P dust coma shows an extreme day/night asymmetry (Della Corte et al. 2015), so that the dust-to-water ratio has been extracted from observations obtained in the coma day side only, where the dust space density provides a sufficient signal.

 

[jonesdave116]

LASP research points to electrostatic dust transport in reshaping airless planetary bodies

Yippee! One more for MAINSTREAM science. Yes?

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88 actually understands some science

LASP research points to electrostatic dust transport in reshaping airless planetary bodies

At last you understand some science, Sol88 !
What you quote (uncited) from Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view is fluffy aggregates "fragmented and decelerated by the electrostatic interaction between the fragments and Rosetta"

LASP research points to electrostatic dust transport in reshaping airless planetary bodies is about electrostatic transport of dust across surfaces. But the experiment had fluffy aggregates lofted off the surface.

Nothing to do with your persistent delusion that comets are rocks unless it is the delusion that dust is rocks !

 

[jonesdave116]

What is also amusing, is that the paper "Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view." is written by people who are publishing papers on this mission! They are part of various mission teams.
Surely, according to Sol, and the idiots at dunderdolts, they should be keeping quiet. Hanging onto their ill gotten funding, yes?
When are we going to see something similar from the idiots T & T? "Oh, sorry guys, we really screwed this one up. Soz." Won't happen, will it?
Here is a scenario:
T & T: "OK, ice is a given. We screwed that up. Can't deny it any more. OK. So let's say that the comet was blasted off of a planet by an invisible thunderbolt, and THEN it attracted a bunch of dust and ice? Yeah? That'll work. Well, it will given the IQ of the idiots that we currently attract. Happy days. Let's go with that. "

EDIT: ^ Remember, you heard that here first!