Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[jonesdave116]

No rock. No discharges. No double layers. Loads of H₂O, CO₂, both solid and vapour. Dead, yes? Never alive, more like. You really shouldn't rely on Thornhill for your 'science'. He's clueless. H⁺, 400 km/s + O^- = OH! Seriously? You believed that? Even when you must have known that the solar wind wasn't going to reach the nucleus, as at Halley? Never thought to question that? Never thought to do the maths to see if it was even reasonable (even if it isn't possible)? None of that made you stop and think, 'this guy is having a laugh'? Nope, just carry on believing. You guys put the YECs to shame for evangelism.

 

[Sol88]

ice, ice everywhere!

except NOT detected by the instruments onboard Rosetta despite 103P/Hartley sheding a **** load!

Why JD116?

The detected bright spots are mostly on consolidated dust free material surfaces, mostly concentrated in equatorial latitudes.

Consolidated WHAT?
ICE?
DUST?

You tell me what the your definition of consolidated is?


Beginner!

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for rule 10. Please do not attempt to evade the autocensor in the public sections; instead type all swear words out in full and correctly spelled to allow the autocensor to catch them.

 

[jonesdave116]

ice, ice everywhere!

except NOT detected by the instruments onboard Rosetta despite 103P/Hartley sheding a ***** load!

Why JD116?

What the hell are you on? I just posted a link to a paper that sees it in solid form on the comet surface. READ, and stop asking inane questions. MIRO sees it subsurface. It's vapour is in the coma. It is ice, end of story.
No rock. No discharges. Need I go on?

 

[jonesdave116]

ice, ice everywhere!

except NOT detected by the instruments onboard Rosetta despite 103P/Hartley sheding a **** load!

Why JD116?



Consolidated WHAT?
ICE?
DUST?

You tell me what the your definition of consolidated is?


Beginner!

<snip> Read the paper. IT IS ICE. Just like the stuff that came out of Tempel 1, just like the stuff surrounding Hartley 2.
<snip>

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited for compliance with rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Sol88]

all you've posted is assumtions based on what a comet WAS expected to be!

total failure...

Philea would have been the definitive answer but the only failure/s for the whole mission were the system designed to fasten it to the nucleus!!!

failed totally, so now we are left to speculation on the mainstreams EXCEPTIONS based on Whipples 1950's model!!!

YOU were expecting an "icy conglomerate"!!! you found "well consolidated material"

normal people call that rock!

Laughable!!!

 

[jonesdave116]

Tell me again; where is your rock? Where were the 'discharges to the nucleus'? Why was the comet 'remarkably non-magnetic'? Where was this 'radial electric field'? Why didn't it charge up the comet, like Wal said it would? Why was water vapour pouring out of it when the solar wind was over 1500 km away? Where were your double layers (not that Wal mentioned them; that's your own fantasy)? Etc, etc.
R.I.P.

 

[jonesdave116]

all you've posted is assumtions based on what a comet WAS expected to be!

total failure...

Philea would have been the definitive answer but the only failure/s for the whole mission were the system designed to fasten it to the nucleus!!!

failed totally, so now we are left to speculation on the mainstreams EXCEPTIONS based on Whipples 1950's model!!!

YOU were expecting an "icy conglomerate"!!! you found "well consolidated material"

normal people call that rock!

Laughable!!!

Can you not read? Tell me, did I, or did I not, just minutes ago post a link to a paper that shows they detected ice on the surface (Which is not the only one)? Have you not bothered reading about the detection of the CO₂ ice on the surface? Did you not read that CONSERT looked right through the 'consolidated' material, and sees NO ROCK? That MIRO did the same, and sees NO ROCK? Did the crater at Tempel 1 even vaguely resemble what one would expect in rock? No. So who is left with nothing?
Go have a lie down, you obviously need it.

 

[jonesdave116]

normal people call that rock!

No, only scientifically challenged woo merchants would be stupid enough, in the face of all the evidence, to call that rock. Remind me, what is the density of rock? What happens when you try to get a radio signal through it? What is its thermal inertia?

 

[jonesdave116]

Hell, I only posted this a little while ago; but, for the hard of thinking, here goes again:

Seasonal exposure of carbon dioxide ice on the nucleus of 67P
Filacchione,G. et al
http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...cience.aag3161

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

BRIGHT ICE SPOTS ON THE NUCLEUS OF COMET 67PCHURYUMOVGERASIMENKO AS OBSERVED BY ROSETTA OSIRIS AND VIRTIS INSTRUMENTS
Barucci, M. A. et al
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016cosp...41E.152B

Porosity and water ice content of the sub-surface material in the Imhotep
von Allman, P.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016EGUGA..1818371V

Infrared detection of exposed Carbon Dioxide ice on 67P CG nucleus
Filacchione,G. et al
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016EGUGA..1811930F

Relationship between inner coma water emissions and ice deposits in Comet 67P
Migliorini, A. et al
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016EGUGA..18.7911M

Exposed water ice on the nucleus of comet 67P
Filacchione,G. et al
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture16190.html

The diurnal cycle of water ice on comet 67P
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...87e56af009.pdf
De Sanctis, M. C. et al

Not to mention (which Thornhill didn't!) the ejection of ice grains at Tempel 1 and Hartley 2.

So, I repeat; what are you on about?

 

[jonesdave116]

And as for 'assumptions'; no, expectations were based on prior EVIDENCE.
As opposed to your expectations, which were based on lies, obfuscation, scientific illiteracy and omission.

 

[jonesdave116]

Philea would have been the definitive answer but the only failure/s for the whole mission were the system designed to fasten it to the nucleus!!!

Wrong. It worked long enough to definitively show that the comet isn't rock (CONSERT). And that it is non-magnetic. And kick up some very interesting compounds from the surface.

 

[jonesdave116]

Thorhill, 2006 & 2010:

But a much different vantage point on the water question is possible. When astronomers view the comas of comets spectroscopically, what they actually see is the hydroxyl radical (OH), which they assume to be a residue of water (H2O) broken down by the ultraviolet light of the Sun

Unambiguous detections of H₂O, 1985-2006:

1. Hale-Bopp 1997 (HDO) http://www.lesia.obspm.fr/perso/nicolas-biver/PREP/hbHDOscience.pdf ; sub-mm, JCMT

2. C/1999 H1 Lee 1999 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/427473/meta#artAbst ; IR Keck observatory; sub-mm SWAS

3. C/1999 S4 Linear 2000 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/427473/meta#artAbst ; IR Keck observatory

4. C/2001 A2 Linear 2001 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/427473/meta#artAbst ; IR Keck observatory & ODIN

5. 21P/Giacobini-Zinner 1998 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103599962188 ; IR IRTF NASA

6. 153/P Ikeya-Zhang 2002 http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucaprjb/papers/DDM04.pdf IR IRTF NASA & ODIN

7. C/1996 B2 Hyakutake 1996 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24388297 ; sub-mm, Caltech

8. 1986I Wilson 1987 https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:20067254 ; NIR, KAO

9. 1P/Halley 1985 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/232/4757/1523.short ; IR, KAO

1P/Halley 1986
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...experiment/links/00b495314ec6341807000000.pdf ; IR, Vega spacecraft

10. 9P/Tempel 1 2005 ; IR, UV, DI spacecraft, XMM-Newton (H2O Vapour & H2O ice) & ODIN

11. C/1999 T1 McNaught-Hartley 2001 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001DPS....33.2011D ; IR IRTF Keck

12. C/1991 A1 Shoemaker-Levy 1995 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995DPS....27.3309M IR IRTF Keck

13. 6P D'Arrest http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995DPS....27.3309M IR IRTF Keck

14. 81P/Wild 2 http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2010/13/aa15161-10/aa15161-10.html ; sub-mm, Herschel

ODIN detections 2001-2005;

C/2001 A2 Linear 2001 http://www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA02/papers/p0903.pdf ; sub-mm, ODIN

14. 19P/Borrelly 2001 http://www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA02/papers/p0903.pdf ; sub-mm, ODIN

15. C/2000 WM1 Linear 2001/2 http://www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA02/papers/p0903.pdf ; sub-mm, ODIN

16. C/2002 T7 LINEAR (HDO) https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610779v1 ; sub-mm ODIN

17. C/2001 Q4 NEAT (HDO) https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610779v1 ; sub-mm ODIN

18. C/2004 Q2 Machholz (HDO) https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610779v1 ; sub-mm ODIN

19. C/2003 K4 LINEAR https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610779v1 ; sub-mm ODIN

20. 2P/Encke https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610779v1 ; sub-mm ODIN

21. C/2002 X5 Kudo-Fujikawa https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610779v1 ; sub-mm ODIN

22. 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1 https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610779v1 ; sub-mm ODIN

153P/2002 C1 Ikeya-Zhang https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610779v1 ; sub-mm ODIN

9P/Tempel 1 https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610779v1 ; sub-mm ODIN

 

[jonesdave116]

Right, so you are accusing a professional scientist, with access to data you neither have, nor would understand, of lying, yes?

Still awaiting an answer to this.

 

[jonesdave116]

Let me clue you in on something Sol. No professional scientist would need to lie, or cover up data, that shows that any EU woo 'has legs'. Partially because, in my experience, they will have never heard of it. Secondly, because all of their nonsense is an evidence-free zone. And thirdly, because any professional scientist that has come into contact with their woo, would see it for the scientifically illiterate rubbish that it is. For the majority, it is not even worth debunking. It really doesn't register.
What we get is a lot of their fanboys infesting places like this pushing their beliefs. Thankfully, on here, they are given the scrutiny that soon shows their nonsense to be just that, from people who are well versed in various aspects of the areas that they prattle on about.
In case it hasn't become clear to you, Thornhill and Talbott's bizarre interpretations all come down to a belief in Velikovskian woo. And, by definition, that has nothing to do with science. If you want to believe garbage like that, you are entitled to. Just don't try to pretend that it has anything to do with science. It hasn't. It's a belief system. No different than astrology, but with fewer acolytes.

 

[tusenfem]

It is concluded that the dust particles are strongly charged and partially coupled to cometary plasmas (or vice versa).

yes, dusty plasma, and ... ???

 

[tusenfem]

It is concluded that the dust particles are strongly charged and partially coupled to cometary plasmas (or vice versa).

Because your telling me the meagre amount of "ice's" sublimating from "somewhere, some distance" below the very well theramaly insulated dusty, tholin rich, well consolidated surface has the power to stop the solar wind from reaching the surface and NOT a double layer?

btw does have the power to STOP the solar wind.... if you were learned enough in PLASMA physics to understand AND we have the ingredients to have, not just one but MANY double layers! As described by Tusenfem and he's "nested draping"!

and HE (Tusenfem) KNOWS this but that would be admitting the EU has legs!

apparently, you did not understand anything from the review paper

i am nested draping???

 

[ferd burfle]

Still awaiting an answer to this.

Think for a minute, jd116. Who is Sol trying to influence with such buffoonery as equivocating an electron with a lightning bolt and an inorganic granule with an asteroid? Obviously not the scientically literate, right? Why is it he never tries to mount any kind of serious argument, never makes a declarative statement? We are not his intended audience, we're just the means to an end.

 

[jonesdave116]

Think for a minute, jd116. Who is Sol trying to influence with such buffoonery as equivocating an electron with a lightning bolt and an inorganic granule with an asteroid? Obviously not the scientically literate, right? Why is it he never tries to mount any kind of serious argument, never makes a declarative statement? We are not his intended audience, we're just the means to an end.

What, you think he's ready to mount a coup against T & T, to become the grand poobah of the scientifically illiterate woo believers over at Dunderdolts?
Hadn't thought of it that way!
The only other explanation I can come up with, is that he enjoys public humiliation, and has become addicted to it.

 

[jonesdave116]

More of Thornhill's ability to be somewhat economical with the truth:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

In 1986, visits to Halley’s comet by the European Giotto and Russian Vega
probes failed to locate surface water and raised the distinct possibility that the
nucleus might not be ejecting water into space.

The 2.5-12/µm Spectrum of Comet Halley from the IKS-VEGA Experiment
Combes, M. et al (1988)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.537.7727&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The2.5-5 ~µm IKS spectra definitely show strong narrow signals at 2.7 µm and 4.25 µm, attributed to the v₃ vibrational bands of H20 and CO2, respectively,......

Detection of Water Vapor in Halley's Comet
Mumma, M. J. et al (1986)
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/232/4757/1523

Gaseous, neutral H₂O was detected in the coma of comet Halley on 22.1 and 24.1 December 1985 Universal Time. Nine spectral lines of the v3 band (2.65 micrometers) were found by means of a Fourier transform spectrometer (λ/▵λ ∼ 10⁵) on the NASA-Kuiper Airborne Observatory.

For any of the lurkers, it should be becoming obvious by now that what Wal and Dave were doing cannot be put down solely to scientific illiteracy, and crap research skills. You were conned.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Stop feeding him.