Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[jonesdave116]

Dupe..

 

[ferd burfle]

Seems there's a continuum between dormant lumps of ROCK and active lumps of ROCK....

That's right, Sol, and Volkswagens are really M1 tanks 'cuz they both emit CO2.

 

[Sol88]

Reality Check, Jonesdave116, Fred Burfle

is not a scientific method.

 

[ferd burfle]

Reality Check, Jonesdave116, Fred Burfle <snipped irrelevant gif> is not a scientific method.

RC, jd116, tusenfem and others post rebuttals based on the science. That benefits those here to learn, myself included. But most of your posts are based on obvious logical fallacies, needing no science to rebut. Like your most recent; fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: An appropriate fingers in ears image from a Thunderbolts cult follower

Reality Check, Jonesdave116, Fred Burfle... not a scientific method.

A pathetic attempt to insult us when we know about the real world of comets but more like
7 April 2017 Sol88: An appropriate for him fingers in ears image from an ignorant Thunderbolts cult follower.

The real world of science: The electric comet delusion debunked back in 2013 !
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.

The ignorant, deluded and lying Thunderbolts world:
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.

 

[jonesdave116]

Reality Check, Jonesdave116, Fred Burfle is not a scientific method.

The original comment by yourself has little or nothing to do with comets. Ice exists on Ceres. This we knew. The authors cannot find a correlation to suggest sublimation as the main driver of the exosphere. However, they can see a correlation with the arrival of solar energetic particle (SEP) events. Ergo, they suggest that the increases in H₂O are due to sputtering of the ice by protons from 1 keV - 1 MeV, with the sputtering peak being at ~ 100 keV.
The amounts of water involved are small; all detections being roughly less than 10 l/s, and possibly as low as ~ 3 l/s. And this is being produced from SEP events onto a body that is much larger than a comet. If you work out the water production per unit area, it would be insignificant for a comet, and possibly undetectable from Earth. However, as I keep saying, this is irrelevant because the solar wind isn't getting anywhere near a cometary nucleus when it is most active. Therefore I fail to see the point that you are trying to make.
I should point out that the authors do say:

While sublimation may be the original source of the water stored on the surface of Ceres, the correlation with the solar proton flux indicates that solar particle sputtering is the proximate agent for the temporary enhancements in the vapor production rate, allowing the exosphere to be detected telescopically.

Now, perhaps you can clarify the exact nature of the point you are trying to make. Bearing in mind, of course, that the solar wind isn't creating the H₂O at Ceres, and that it isn't reaching the nucleus of 67P when the outgassing rate was hundreds of litres per second.

 

[jonesdave116]

Sol88: The research began with a 2016 Science study led by Chris Russell. The study, using GRaND data, suggested that, during a six-day period in 2015, Ceres had accelerated electrons from the solar wind to very high energies.

Indeed. And the point being? The same process happens at comets. A bow shock is formed where the solar wind encounters the coma. The SW is deflected. As the authors state:

One way of producing a transient, standing bow shock at Ceres is a comet-like interaction of the solar wind with a cerean atmosphere that can mass load the solar wind and cause it to deflect. Once the atmosphere dissipates, there will no longer be a significant obstacle to the solar wind to form a bow shock and the electron acceleration will cease.

I'm still failing to see your point. Is it that you want to compare a dwarf planet with a comet? A dwarf planet with a density of ~ 2.2 g/cm³? Why not just go the whole hog, and include a real planet? Mars has got ice on it. Is it a comet? Or is a comet a mini-Mars? The big difference between planets/ asteroids, and comets is the abundance of rock on the former, and the total undetectability of it on the latter. Hence their very different densities.

 

[jonesdave116]

Dup. Either the site is playing up, or my browser is.

 

[JeanTate]

Indeed. And the point being? The same process happens at comets. A bow shock is formed where the solar wind encounters the coma. The SW is deflected. As the authors state:



I'm still failing to see your point. Is it that you want to compare a dwarf planet with a comet? A dwarf planet with a density of ~ 2.2 g/cm³? Why not just go the whole hog, and include a real planet? Mars has got ice on it. Is it a comet? Or is a comet a mini-Mars? The big difference between planets/ asteroids, and comets is the abundance of rock on the former, and the total undetectability of it on the latter. Hence their very different densities.

The point is, as Sol88 continues to demonstrate so comprehensively, that whatever "the Electric Universe" is, it isn't science.

 

[Sol88]

:yawn

Still no viable mechanism for the Jet formation from the "mainstream", though they are starting to come round that the Electric Sun is the main player!

I mean collapsing cliffs exposing "bright patches" what a howler!!

It's a howler because that is the ONLY mechanism "mainstream" have, very sad.

 

[jonesdave116]

Still no viable mechanism for the Jet formation from the "mainstream", though they are starting to come round that the Electric Sun is the main player!

I mean collapsing cliffs exposing "bright patches" what a howler!!

Flat out lies. Where do you think the icy debris at the foot of cliffs has come from? Mars?
And you can lie all you like, but I'm sure the following paper was flagged up in here recently:

The pristine interior of comet 67P revealed by the combined aswan outburst and cliff collapse
Pajola, M. et al (2017)
http://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-017-0092

In that paper, it is clearly stated that...

Moreover, the collapse revealed the fresh icy interior of the comet, which is characterized by an albedo>0.4, and provided the opportunity to study how the crumbling wall settled down to form a new talus.

There is also:
A model of short-lived outbursts on the 67P from fractured terrains
Skorov, Yu. V. et al (2016)
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2016/09/aa28365-16/aa28365-16.html

So. like I say, just more lies from someone who, highly ironically, believes in impossible electric woo, for which there has not been one scintilla of evidence. Has, in fact, repeatedly been shown to be wrong in every single aspect of its claims.
Quite how you've got the cheek to be still posting in here is beyond me. You are in no position to criticise; least of all to lie, and make stuff up, in order to make that criticism.

 

[Sol88]

Despite multiple observations suggesting various triggering processes4,5, the driving mechanism of such outbursts is still poorly understood. Landslides have been invoked to explain some outbursts on comet 103P/Hartley 2, although the process required a pre-existing dust layer on the verge of failure.

Knee slappn belly laugh!

Would you like to revisit you favourite comet JD116? Perhaps you can show me, Where do you think the icy debris at the foot of cliffs has come from gone? from the receding icy cliffs?

( Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Cornell)

Original Caption Released with Image:

This image layout depicts changes in the surface of comet Tempel 1, observed first by NASA's Deep Impact Mission in 2005 (top right) and again by NASA's Stardust-NExT mission on Feb. 14, 2011 (bottom right). Between the two visits, the comet made one trip around the sun. The image at top left is a wider shot from Deep Impact.

The smooth terrain is at a higher elevation than the more textured surface around it. Scientists think that cliffs, illustrated with yellow lines to the right, are being eroded back to the left in this view. The cliffs appear to have eroded as much as 20 to 30 meters (66 to 100 feet) in some places, since Deep Impact took the initial image. The box shows depressions that have merged together over time, also from erosion. This erosion is caused by volatile substances evaporating away from the comet.

Can't see any and no sublimation from the albedo >0.4 "ice".

Have another go ya mug!

like I said it's ALL you've got! Sad.

 

[Sol88]

dupe

Whats up with the posting? Forum playing up?

 

[jonesdave116]

Knee slappn belly laugh!

Would you like to revisit you favourite comet JD116? Perhaps you can show me, Where do you think the icy debris at the foot of cliffs has come from gone?

[qimg]https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA13862.jpg[/qimg] from the recession of icy cliffs?

Can't see any and no sublimation from the albedo >0.4 "ice".

Have another go ya mug!

like I said it's ALL you've got! Sad.

You're talking out of your nether regions, yet again. The debris at the foot of cliffs on 67P has been spectroscopically resolved as being H2O. This has been linked to previously. I am getting sick to death of having to keep repeating links, and then having you ignore them, only to pop up again, weeks later, spouting the same rubbish. Learn to read, yes?

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/component/article/?access=doi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361/201525977
See Fig. 1 if you can't understand the text.

And, from the paper I linked earlier:

The presence of fresh exposed water ice on the cliff face is indirectly confirmed by the temporal evolution of its normal albedo. On 26 December 2015, the bright cliff was imaged again with the NAC (Fig. 1d), and the resulting normal albedo at its edge was 0.16–0.18 (50% less than ~5 months before, meaning that most of the exposed water ice had already sublimated).

And:
Exposed water ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumo Gerasimenko
Filacchione, G. et al (2016)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7586/abs/nature16190.html

Here we report the identification at infrared wavelengths of water ice on two debris falls in the Imhotep region of the nucleus. The ice has been exposed on the walls of elevated structures and at the base of the walls.

So, again, you can carry on with the lying, but nobody is buying it. Guess you learned that trick from Wal. It might fool the idiots at Dunderdolts, but it is doing you no favours here.

 

[jonesdave116]

Can't see any and no sublimation from the albedo >0.4 "ice".

Jesus. What an idiotic statement!

 

[Sol88]

but your real problem JD116 is this, Cosmochemical implications of CONSERT permittivity characterization of 67P/CG

The temperature is within a 100–150 K range from SESAME data (Lethuillier et al. 2016) and about 90–130 K from MUPUS data (Spohn et al. 2015). Furthermore, the near-surface is likely to be a good insulator. The thermal inertia, as derived from MUPUS, is (85 ± 35) J m−2 K−1 s−1/2 (Spohn et al. 2015), to be compared with a range of 10–50 J m−2 K−1 s−1/2, derived from MIRO on board Rosetta for the overall subsurface (Gulkis et al. 2015). The interior of the nucleus is thus only weakly sensitive to variations in surface illumination, with temperatures most likely remaining below 100 K.

further

However, the depth at which the primitive material of 67P can be found is not well constrained. Based on one-dimensional thermal propagation models fitting the MIRO data, it has been determined that the diurnal variation in temperature is confined to the upper layer of the subsurface, with a thermal penetration depth of a couple of centimetres.

....

Activity and its source

OSIRIS has detected the presence of a dust coma since the pronounced outburst between 27 and 30 April 2014, or even earlier (18). We detected resolved features in the coma (SM2) in long WAC exposures with the 610-nm filter (SM1) at the end of July 2014, when the comet was 3.7 AU from the Sun and the spacecraft distance was 3000 km. Most of the activity was unambiguously coming out of the transition region between the small and large lobes of the nucleus, the Hapi region, or very close to it. This was consistent with ground-based observations of coma structures over the last two orbital periods, which implied an active region at high northern (positive) latitude (19). When the spacecraft distance dropped to 100 km (resulting in a resolution of 1.8 m/pixel in NAC, 10 m/pixel in WAC), it was possible to localize the active sources by inversion of the jets. Most of the jets arose from Hapi, at about +60° latitude (Fig. 4), although we found other minor active spots on both lobes of the nucleus (SM3). This major coma feature presents a diurnal variation of intensity due to changing insolation conditions and observational geometry: A planar fan-like jet appears brighter and more focused when viewed edge-on rather than face-on.

On the nucleus structure and activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

from Hapi??? Region=Hapi, Terrain=Smooth Named after Hapi, that's a smooth plain...no cracking crumbling cliffs.

So again no consistency, sad

Your just clutching at straws...again.

 

[Sol88]

dupe AGAIN

 

[Sol88]

Jesus. What an idiotic statement!

Moreover, the collapse revealed the fresh icy interior of the comet, which is characterized by an albedo >0.4, and provided the opportunity to study how the crumbling wall settled down to form a new talus.

LINK

It's bright so it MUST be ice!!

 

[jonesdave116]

Oh dear, yet more nonsense. Piles of it. Let me ask this: WHERE IS YOUR ELECTRIC WOO? This is what this thread is about. So how about telling us? Rather than cherry picking parts of papers, when you quite obviously do not understand the science involved? As has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread, and elsewhere.

First of all, CONSERT definitively shows that the comet isn't rock. As if we didn't already know that. That was one of your claims, wasn't it? How about dealing with that?
Secondly, there is very good evidence that the ice is near surface. If it wasn't, it would be unlikely that they would be detecting transient patches of H₂O and CO₂ ice at the surface, eh?

The Nucleus and Coma of Comet 67P/C-G at Millimeter and Submillimeter Wavelengths as seen by MIRO
Hofstadter, M. et al (2015)
https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/85998

Seasonal exposure of carbon dioxide ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Filacchione, G. et al (2016)
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/11/16/science.aag3161

Rosetta’s comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko sheds its dusty mantle to reveal its icy nature
Fornasier, S. et al (2016)
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/11/16/science.aag2671

As for Hapi; that paper is 'old'. It was submitted in Oct 2014. Data are from early in the mission, when only the northern hemisphere was illuminated, and the heliocentric distance was large. Hapi showed the bluest spectral slope, indicating that at that stage it was the area with ice closest to the surface.
http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/55592-hapi-region-on-comet-67p-osiris-nac-false-colour-image/

As for why it must be ice on the cliffs; what is seen when the bright debris from cliffs is studied spectroscopically? Ice. Where did it come from? What the hell else do you think the bright areas exposed on the cliff would be, if the debris is ice? Chalk, maybe? Limestone? Why does its albedo gradually fade over time? What other material would exhibit such behaviour? Why does the quote I posted a link to previously, say:

Here we report the identification at infrared wavelengths of water ice on two debris falls in the Imhotep region of the nucleus. The ice has been exposed on the walls of elevated structures and at the base of the walls.

So come on, genius, what is it?

Why, when there was a suspected cliff collapse, did they detect first the H₂O vapour, and then the dust?

The 2016 Feb 19 outburst of comet 67P/CG: an ESA Rosetta multi-instrument study
Grün, E. et al (2016)
https://hal-ens.archives-ouvertes.fr/insu-01368002/document

So, how about defending this scientifically illiterate electric comet woo, which is actually the point of this thread. Where is the evidence for the woo? Conspicuous by its absence, isn't it?
Or at least have the honesty to admit that there isn't any. And then we can all move on and leave you to your faith based belief in impossible woo.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: A lie about no viable mechanism for comet jets from the mainstream

Still no viable mechanism for the Jet formation from the "mainstream", though they are starting to come round that the Electric Sun is the main player ...!

10 April 2017 Sol88: A lie about no viable mechanism for comet jets from the mainstream.
The theory and evidence for formation from sublimating ices dates from the 1950's !

10 April 2017 Sol88: A lie about the mainstream being ignorant enough to believe in his delusions about an electric sun.

10 April 2017 Sol88: A lie about collapsing cliffs exposing bright patches being the only source for comet jets.

The facts:
We have images of cliffs that have collapsed on 67P.
We have images of bright patches of probably water ices in the exposed surfaces of those collapsed cliffs.

We have traced the source of some jets to cliffs (not these) on 67P.