Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[jonesdave116]

Dup.

 

[tusenfem]

but your saying it's all in the form of dust? and not rock like "well consolidated material"? as seen on 67P

Go to the original "dirty snowball" model (which is cited in my review paper, which I know you have) and you will see that:

Whipple [1950] combined all spectral observations and published the now well-known “dirty snowball” model of comets. In this model the nucleus of the comet is seen as a conglomeration of volatile ices (such as H2O and CO2) bound in a solid rocky body of meteoritic material. Actually, this model was developed to explain the non-Keplerian behaviour of comets (specifically comet 2P/Encke);

Whipple, F. L. (1950), A comet model I. the acceleration of comet Encke, Astrophys. J., 111, 375 – 394.

 

[tusenfem]

Still no word from the mainstream on the "jets" they observed up close for nearly two years!

Holger Sierks must have quite the collection by now. Still embargoed as well I guess

Yeah, it's not like there was no MNRAS Special Issue on Rosetta, and another one in the making (submission deadline end of March).

Unfortunately in the real world, it takes time for data to be analyzed, and to actually write up a paper about the analysis. (Unlike in the EUniverse where looking at only one pic is enough to draw far-fetching conclusions).

Next SWT of Rosetta is in March, in New York (I will not attend), the next RPC team meeting is in May in Orleans (I will attend).

 

[jonesdave116]

Still no word from the mainstream on the "jets" they observed up close for nearly two years!

Holger Sierks must have quite the collection by now. Still embargoed as well I guess

Sorry, where was Thornhill's critique of the ice ejected at Tempel 1? Where was the Dunderdolts APOD of all the ice around Hartley 2? Why were such things non-existent on hollowscience and Dunderdolts? Embargoed were they? Or best not to bring up such things when they show that your silly idea is as dead as a dodo already?
Deceet d-ceet deceit? Or just outright lies?

 

[Dancing David]

I mean really can you believe that Pluto isn't made out of rock, psshhh frozen nitrogen, they don't have that is Australia.

 

[Reality Check]

a true believer in snowydustballs or comets are rock?

There is only one person currently posting in thread ignorant enough to believe in "true believer" or "comets are rock".

Rational and knowledgeable people trust the body of physical evidence (for example the Deep Impact mission you have been lying about) that shows that comets are ices and dust.

On the other hand there is the ignorance, delusions and lies of the eclectic comet that really need a "true believer" - that is why Thunderbolts is a cult with prophets and followers !
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 7 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

Blindly following Thunderbolts dogma a reason why their followers are so afraid of the real world:
More than a year and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88:A delusion about the Stardust mission and 67P

Physical, Chemical, and Mineralogical Properties
of Comet 81P/Wild 2 Particles Collected by Stardust

23 February 2017 Sol88: The delusion that the Stardust mission collected "consolidated material" from the nucleus of a comet, e.g. 67P !

The Stardust mission collected grains of dust from the coma of comet Wild 2 that had been blown off the surface of the nucleus. The mission confirmed what we already had evidence for - comets are made of dust from the early solar system!

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Implied lie of the surface of 67P has to have the same porosity as its bulk

how porous was the layer encountered by the MUPUS instrument

23 February 2017 Sol88: An implied lie that the surface of 67P has to have the same porosity as its bulk.

The measured bulk porosity is ~70%. We expects the surface to have a different porosity because it is exposed to space and will have a different compassion (outgassing, UV radiation, solar wind sometimes).

 

[Reality Check]

Please tell the lurkers how an instrument designed to penetrate amorphous "ice" that was expected at the comet with no noticeable penetration even into highly porous ice?

23 February 2017 Sol88: A lie that MUPUS was designed to penetrate amorphous ice when it was deigned to try to penetrate the ices and dust of a comet nucleus.

23 February 2017 Sol88: Deludingly cites a paper stating that MUPUS did not penetrate "highly porous ice"!
Estimating the strength of the nucleus material of comet 67P Churyumov–Gerasimenko

23 February 2017 Sol88: The usual lie of "ice" when he knows the physical evidence that comets are made of ice (no scare quotes).

Overall this looks like an ignorant delusion that porous material cannot have a fairly high strength.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: The idiocy of an uncited quote again!

Care to give it a crack mate?

Sure:
23 February 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of an uncited quote again!

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: False dichotomy - a mainstream mystery is not support for his delusion

Care to give it a crack mate? !

23 February 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of an uncited quote again!
And
23 February 2017 Sol88 : Argument from false dichotomy - a mainstream mystery is not support for his delusion that comets are rocks because that is a delusion!

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Two lies about 67P jets: They are jets, there are papers

Still no word from the mainstream on the "jets" they observed up close for nearly two years!

23 February 2017 Sol88: Two lies about 67P jets: They are jets (no scare quotes), there are papers about them.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: A lie that Holger Sierks embargoes data about 67P jets

Holger Sierks must have quite the collection by now. Still embargoed as well I guess

23 February 2017 Sol88: A lie that Holger Sierks embargoes data about 67P jets.

Releasing data after proprietary period is not something that an individual scientist working on the data would be responsible for. It is likely to be an automated process.
Access to Rosetta data

However, it is important to know that such an "open data" policy is not the norm for most ESA and NASA missions. Data from the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-Ray observatory, the MESSENGER mission to Mercury, or for that matter, some NASA Mars orbiters, are all subject to a so-called "proprietary period", as are the data from ESA's Mars Express, XMM-Newton, and Rosetta, for example.

This period, typically 6-12 months, gives exclusive access to the data to the scientists who built the instruments or to scientists who made a winning proposal to make certain observations. In ESA's case, the length of the period is decided by our Member States when a mission is selected, although in some cases, the period is made shorter when a mission has been in operation for some time.
...
With Rosetta, all data from its 21 instruments (11 on the orbiter, 10 on the Philae lander) are subject to a 6 month proprietary period. Thus any release of images and scientific results that we are making now, as we approach rendezvous with 67P/C-G on 6 August, is being done with direct involvement of the instrument science teams, who are agreeing to waive the proprietary period for those items.

The Rosetta mission ended last September so all but 1 or 2 months of data has been released and it is possible all Rosetta data has been released.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: The delusion that grains of dust in space must contain molecular oxygen

Any O₂ in any of these Fred Burfle

23 February 2017 Sol88: The delusion that grains of dust in space must contain molecular oxygen (O₂).

23 February 2017 Sol88: Inane, irrelevant highlights in an uncited quote.

 

[Reality Check]

Cool, perhaps you can show us how the jets merge from smaller to larger in the vacuum of space?

Without a citation to the science, this looks like yet another delusion from Sol88, or another attempt to divert attention from his delusion that comets are rocks. We know that he is incapable of learning anything real about comet given his almost 8 year history of parroting ignorance, delusions and lies from Thunderbolts.

The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 7 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).

For others: The answer looks simple - ices sublimate, jets emerge, jets spread out, jets overlap and bigger jets emerge!

 

[Reality Check]

Some real world science for a change - sublimating gases on 67P create winds that change the shapes of dunes: Here’s Something We Never Thought We’d See on a Comet: Shifting Dunes

There is indeed a wind blowing along the comet’s surface, said Claudin, coming from gases that escape from the surface.
Gases escape at ‘sunset’ on the comet, caused by the pressure difference between the sunlit side, where the surface ice can sublimate due to the energy provided by the sunlight, and the night side.
“This transient atmosphere is still extremely tenuous, with a maximum pressure at perihelion, when the comet is closest to the Sun, 100,000 times lower than on Earth,” the team said in a press release. “However, gravity on the comet is also very weak, and an analysis of the forces exerted on the grains at the comet’s surface shows that these thermal winds can transport centimeter-scale grains, whose presence has been confirmed by images of the ground. The conditions required to allow the formation of dunes, namely winds able to transport the grains along the ground, are thus met on Chury’s surface.”

Giant ripples on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko sculpted by sunset thermal wind

Explaining the unexpected presence of dune-like patterns at the surface of the comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko requires conceptual and quantitative advances in the understanding of surface and outgassing processes. We show here that vapor flow emitted by the comet around its perihelion spreads laterally in a surface layer, due to the strong pressure difference between zones illuminated by sunlight and those in shadow. For such thermal winds to be dense enough to transport grains—10 times greater than previous estimates—outgassing must take place through a surface porous granular layer, and that layer must be composed of grains whose roughness lowers cohesion consistently with contact mechanics. The linear stability analysis of the problem, entirely tested against laboratory experiments, quantitatively predicts the emergence of bedforms in the observed wavelength range and their propagation at the scale of a comet revolution. Although generated by a rarefied atmosphere, they are paradoxically analogous to ripples emerging on granular beds submitted to viscous shear flows. This quantitative agreement shows that our understanding of the coupling between hydrodynamics and sediment transport is able to account for bedform emergence in extreme conditions and provides a reliable tool to predict the erosion and accretion processes controlling the evolution of small solar system bodies.

 

[ferd burfle]

Yawn.. Physical, Chemical, and Mineralogical Properties
of Comet 81P/Wild 2 Particles Collected by Stardust



but your saying it's all in the form of dust? and not rock like "well consolidated material"? as seen on 67P

Sol doubles down on dust = rock.

and I 'spose you do know the specific gravity of water ice? how porous was the layer encountered by the MUPUS instrument?


Please tell the lurkers how an instrument designed to penetrate amorphous "ice" that was expected at the comet with no noticeable penetration even into highly porous ice?

And tries to divert attention away from multiple measurements of entire comets showing their densities to be far below that of rock.

The EU crowd clings to the same old guff year after year.

 

[Sol88]

Sol doubles down on dust = rock.




And tries to divert attention away from multiple measurements of entire comets showing their densities to be far below that of rock.

The EU crowd clings to the same old guff year after year.

Sol88 doubles down on "well consolidated" Rock-like dust being called ROCK!

 

[jonesdave116]

Sol88 doubles down on "well consolidated" Rock-like dust being called ROCK!

Except, for the zillionth time, it isn't rock. CONSERT would not have gotten the signal it did through rock. MIRO would not have seen the temperature readings it did at depth in rock. I can't find the paper I previously linked on the nature of the sound waves produced by the hammering of MUPUS, but that also didn't indicate rock.
So, there is absolutely zero evidence of rock, and everywhere they have looked at the comet with the appropriate instruments, it turns out not to be rock.
When added to the size of the crater at Tempel 1, and the measured density of this and other comets, it is incredibly obvious that comets are not rock.
Quite why you have such a problem with this, I have absolutely no idea.
Just to clarify - it isn't rock.

EDIT:
Found the abstract I was referring to:
Constraints for the subsurface structure at the Abydos site on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko resulting from CASSE listening to the MUPUS insertion phase
Knapmeyer, M. et al
https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm16/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/118788

.......the shear modulus may easily be as large as 10 MPa. This is still low compared to solid rock or monocrystalline ice, but is compatible with highly porous materials.

This is not the first time I have posted that, either. How many times do we need to keep posting the same things before Sol actually addresses the science, rather than the usual 'looks like a duck' non-science of EU? (That question was almost certainly rhetorical)

 

[tusenfem]

This is not the first time I have posted that, either. How many times do we need to keep posting the same things before Sol actually addresses the science, rather than the usual 'looks like a duck' non-science of EU? (That question was almost certainly rhetorical)

Sol's learning curve has a negative derivative ...