Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[jonesdave116]

Now batting 3 probably more as the ice pits are bunk and surface/subsurface ice is a long bow to draw.

Why is it? Surface ice and subsurface ice were exactly what was directly detected at Tempel 1.
As for "boulders" exhibiting no ice, well they have seen plenty that show bright patches, that are almost certainly water ice. They sure as hell aren't electric. There was a paper on it a couple of weeks ago.
And if you look there are bright patches around the pit called Seth. No reason to expect them to be anything other than ice of some description.

Like I said, he is batting zero, which is what one would expect from someone not qualified in the field, who believes in weird interpretations of ancient petroglyphs and the like. There is literally nothing, not a single scrap of evidence, found on or around any comet, ever, to give any indication that it is an electric rock. Zilch. Nada. Nowt. The square root of zero. Five eighths of .............................

 

[Sol88]

Yes, you linked to part of it yourself, Sol: http://www.aanda.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201525925

If you want to go back some time to show that this is really H20 that is being dissociated, then look here: http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2015/pdf/2494.pdf

The VIRTIS measurements detected the spectral line of water. Not OH. And if you read the paper carefully, you will see that their measurements were made of emissions coming from a distance of 0 - ~500m from the comet.

If you doubt that the OH that is being produced is OH+ (as would be expected from photodissociation) and not Thornhill's loony idea, which I've highlighted before, which expects an OH- ion, then there is plenty of stuff out there, such as here: http://authors.library.caltech.edu/22348/

Strange, isn't it. I can't seem to find a coherent explanation of the EU model. At least, not one that agrees with actual observations. And when I point this out, your cobber Haig links to some nonsense in an attempt to claim that negative = positive. Very strange.

tl;dr? EU requires OH- to be produced from the non-existent silicate rock. It then requires a proton (H+) from the solar wind to combine with the OH- to form H20. That is Thornhill's fantasy for the observed water. Except a) the OH observed is positive, and b) there are nowhere near enough protons in the solar wind to account for the amount of H20 observed. As has been shown.

ETA:
The following may also help in the understanding that Thornhill's explanation for the water observed is wrong: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL016840/pdf
In this they discuss the detections of various species at 19P/Borrelly, but the most important, for this discussion, are H2O+ and OH+. No mention of OH-, which is required if Thornhill's explanation is to be correct. Not to mention an increase in solar wind H+ density of about 10 000 000 times its measured value.

H- + OH+ = Oxygen Hydride, formed close to the comet surface....as detected.

 

[tusenfem]

H- + OH+ = Oxygen Hydride, formed close to the comet surface....as detected.

And I guess you can quote a scientific paper which shows what the reaction rate of:

H^- (@SW velocity) + OH⁺ (@rest) --> H₂O

And by the way it would be oxygendihydrate

(why I bother replying to your idiotic claims remains a mystery, only for the lurkers, I guess)

 

[Reality Check]

Now batting 3 probably more as the ice pits are bunk and surface/subsurface ice is a long bow to draw.

Now writing complete delusions, Sol88 .
The ice pits on 67P are in the images that you have seen!
The only possible source of the jets for rational people who know physics is ice and dust that is in the nucleus - surface or subsurface. This not you Sol88 since you have kept the irrational idea that rock has a density less than water for 6 years now.

Talbott's fantasies based in ignorance and delusions were not predictions - read the ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc.

This is now 5 strikeouts, Sol88:

1. No "electric discharges" at all detected.
2. No "electrical erosion".
3. A prediction would be a statement of what negative ions how close to the surface will be seen not an idiotically vague "unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus".
   That is not a prediction - it is a fantasy.
4. It is a lie about an "abundance of unexplained rocky debris on the surface, as seen on asteroids, including sharp edged boulders exhibiting no ices" being detected.
   No rock at all has been observed on 67P - except in the deluded minds of the Thunderbolts authors when they look at images of ice and dust and imagine they see rock!
5. It is a lie that any "“astonishing,” complex crystalline molecules, with comparisons to materials on planets and moons" have been detected at 67P.
   Many organic molecules have been detected as expected from ices acted upon by the solar wind (The ‘perfume’ of 67P/C-G).
   There have been dust particles detected as expected. No astronomer has been stupid enough to say that these dust particles came from planets or moons.

Not understanding English is bad, Sol88:
Charge exchange in cometary coma: Discovery of H− ions in the solar wind close to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

In this paper, we report an unpredicted and, to our knowledge, not previously observed phenomenon—energetic negative particles in the solar wind. We show evidence that these particles are negative hydrogen ions produced by double charge exchange of solar wind protons with the neutral gas of the coma, the densities of which were measured concurrently by the Rosetta Orbiter spectrometer for ion and neutral analysis (ROSINA) instrument [Balsiger et al., 2007].

This is about the neutral gas of the coma creating negative particles in the solar wind "far" (~10 kilometers) from the surface. And if I read Figure 2 correctly, only on the part of the Rosetta orbit facing the Sun.

 

[jonesdave116]

H- + OH+ = Oxygen Hydride, formed close to the comet surface....as detected.

Eh? It's already been shown that the solar wind proton flux is a minimum of 10^7 times too low to be responsible for H2O production if you have it combining with OH-.
So, now you want a flux that is only 10% of the solar wind proton flux to be responsible for combining with OH+ to give H2O?
That means increasing the flux to 10^8 times it measured value. Of course, that is a massive underestimate. You're expecting, as Tusenfem mentions above, every single ion to combine and form H2O. That won't happen. Not with a solar wind speed of ~400 km/s. Not sure it could happen at all at those speeds, Tusenfem would know better. Either way, very few of those ions are going to combine with anything. That means jacking up the required flux by 2,3,4.......? orders of magnitude.
So a solar wind ion flux of, what, 10^12 times the measured value? And Tusenfem and his mates haven't noticed that? Dream on. Might be a convincing argument on thunderdolts, but I'd leave the science to the scientists, if I were you. And the maths.

 

[Reality Check]

H- + OH+ = Oxygen Hydride, formed close to the comet surface....as detected.

One more time:
Charge exchange in cometary coma: Discovery of H− ions in the solar wind close to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
H- ions in the solar wind, Sol88 !
H- ions created from protons exchanged with neutral atoms in the coma, Sol88 !
H- ions far from the comet surface (~10 kilometers), Sol88 !

Are you still afraid to test the EC delusion, Sol88[/B?
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.

 

[HighRiser]

And I guess you can quote a scientific paper which shows what the reaction rate of:

H^- (@SW velocity) + OH⁺ (@rest) --> H₂O

And by the way it would be oxygendihydrate

(why I bother replying to your idiotic claims remains a mystery, only for the lurkers, I guess)

This lurker appreciates it, friend!

 

[Sol88]

So the combination of both mechanisms H- making Hydride's and OH- recombine with solar wind protons still won't raise an eyebrow??

Even if when they're directed as particle beams and not averaged out over the whole solar wind, as assumed here?

Still the dirtysnowball is a dead in the water theory!!

Did David Talbott claim "unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus" as a PREDICTION that has now been confirmed??

 

[Sol88]

I'd also like Reality Check to explain to me this PREDICTION:

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

When we see "Rocks" every where

'Rocky' terrains
The term ‘rocky’ is used as way to distinguish this terrain from the smooth terrains; in reality, the comet’s density is very low, some 470 kg/m^3 , and it is extremely porous. These ‘rocky’ terrains consist of consolidated material that is exposed at the periphery of Imhotep. They are the sites of erosion, as emphasized by the large numbers of boulders and debris seen close to these outcrops. The erosion observed along the exposed walls is likely triggered by the sublimation of ices, controlled by gravity and exacerbated by fractures.

EVERYBODY can see they are "rocks" but YOU must not say ROCK. What are the boulders made out of then , Reality Check, Tusenfem? "ICE"????

Why aren't they sublimating then?

 

[Sol88]

And then this old chestnut pops up again

Jet source can be "pit/sinkholes" but the majority is from flat dust filled plains, like the "neck" region.

Why would this be so if we are TOLD that jets originate from pits/sinkholes???

Which btw has no viable mechanism for the circularity, flat floors and steep walls?

Seems jets don't come from sublimating ice, as PREDICTED by David Talbott

no layers's of ice exposed beneath the surface, despite the requirements of standard theory
• no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active

 

[Sol88]

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

smooth elevated feature on the surface of the nucleus showing recession of icy cliffs at the margins.

Question is why would they blow their horns on the discovery of water ice on the surface a comet but NOT even mention the receding "ICY" cliffs?

The graphic from the LINK show both areas but only the frosty patches are shown as ice and NOT the "ICY" Cliffs.

Oversight? Not important?

or as I suspect EDM producing falt areas comparably to our Moon's maria, Mercury's basins, Mars basins, Io, Pluto.... and seen on ALL comets

 

[Sol88]

Question:

Is Pluto a comet or a planet?

unexpected finding of young ice mountains at Pluto and crispy clear views of young fractures on its largest moon Charon,

but we HAVE retreating ICY cliffs on Tempel 1????

All sounds very "Once upon a time, long ago"

I remember my Mum reading me those kind of fairey tales as a kid!!!

now I read them myself from sites like ESA, NASA, ADS etc

Scientists analysing the images think that the pits are formed

The team also speculates about the timing of the formation of the icy patches.

but

Based on observations of the gas emerging from comets, they are known to be rich in ices

So rule everything else out! Now THATS science!

arrrh... back to square one

 

[Reality Check]

Question:

Is Pluto a comet or a planet?

Answer:

That is a really dumb question because even school children know that Pluto is not a comet or a planet .

We have retreating ICY cliffs on Tempel 1!!!

All sounds like the real world rather then a Sol88 fantasy world.

Read actual science about the real world yourself from sites like ESA, NASA, ADS etc, Sol88 rather than spinning fairy stories about Pluto being a comet!

So rule everything else out! Now THATS science! Rational people know that comets cannot be rocks because their densities have been measured to be less than water.

You never left square one Sol88 - 6 years now and you are still in denial of the simple fact that 0.6 is less than 3.0 and are sticking with the ignorance, delusions and lies of Thunderbolts :eek.

 

[Vermonter]

Question: Is Pluto a comet or a planet?

Neither. Next question?

Longer answer: Pluto has a more or less stable (if elliptical) orbit, and has enough mass to form into a roughly spherical shape. It's large enough to have satellites of its own, the barycenter is somewhere outside of Pluto's radius. As such, it qualifies as a dwarf planet and not a "full" planet. Comets are also much, much smaller, and have highly elliptical orbits that take them close to the sun (as in within the inner planets).

 

[Reality Check]

So the combination of both mechanisms H- making Hydride's and OH- recombine with solar wind protons still won't raise an eyebrow??

Gibberish about "both mechanisms H- making Hydride's and OH- recombine with solar wind protons" will raise eyebrows, Sol88.

One more time:
Charge exchange in cometary coma: Discovery of H− ions in the solar wind close to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
H- ions in the solar wind, Sol88 !
H- ions created from protons exchanged with neutral atoms in the coma, Sol88 !
H- ions far from the comet surface (~10 kilometers), Sol88 !

Are you still afraid to test the EC delusion, Sol88[/B?
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.

That is solar protons hitting neutral atoms in the coma and creating H- ions in the solar wind.

AFAIK: H- is also created from various molecules (including H2O) by dissociation. That has been known about for decades.

A lie about David Talbott claim "unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus" being confirmed when it is too vague to ever be confirmed will raise eyebrows, Sol88.

Lying about the the "dirtysnowball" being a "dead in the water theory" will raise eyebrows, Sol88.
Every comet we have ever looked has ices and dust - that is a "dirtysnowball" ! Of course we will now probably see rants about "iceydirtball" etc.!

 

[Reality Check]

I'd also like Reality Check to explain to me this PREDICTION:

It is David Talbott stating his and your delusion that comets and rocks, Sol88.

It is David Talbott stating his and your ignorance (as we have seen before) about the contents of astronomical images, Sol88.
There is no way that by just looking at a image of a comet surface you can tell whether "rocky debris" is made of ice or rock. You also need to measure the composition of the comets as we have done many times. Then rational people state that the "rocky debris" is made of ices and dust.

It is David Talbott stating his delusion that whether boulders have ices can be seen in images.

It is David Talbott's prediction that has been falsified by "sharp edged" (more vague phrasing to allow him to weasel out) boulders exhibiting bright patches that expect from ices.

EVERYBODY WHO IS RATIONAL can read "rocks" or 'rocks' or "rocky terrain" or 'rocky terrain' and know that all this is stuff made up of ices and dust.

Are you still afraid to test the EC delusion, Sol88? 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.
Let us see - 6 years and you seem still afraid to learn the several ways that the densities of comets have been measured. Will it be 6 years before you learn to click on links and enter parameters in a impact calculator !

 

[Reality Check]

And then this old chestnut pops up again

Yes: the old chestnut of what looks like mindless parroting of the ignorance, delusions and lies of Thunderbolts pops up again.

Jet sources can be pits or sinkholes but the majority of jets have not been traced to as small an area as a pit because that is WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD in all of the sources you shave read.

• Some jets have been traced back to pits.
• At least one pit has signs of a jet being emitted from inside it.
• Most jets have not been traced back to small areas - they are seen being emitted from big areas such as the neck region - which is not a "flat dust filled plain" !

BTW lying about "no viable mechanism for the circularity, flat floors and steep walls" of a pit is bad, Sol88.
That viable mechanism is sublimating ices!

20 July 2015 Sol88: This is still 5 strikeouts of David Talbott's "predictions" !

 

[Reality Check]

Question is why would they blow their horns on the discovery of water ice on the surface a comet but NOT even mention the receding "ICY" cliffs?

A better question is why would someone be deluded about basic English?
Comparison of Deep Impact and Stardust photos of a smooth elevated feature on the surface of the nucleus showing recession of icy cliffs at the margins

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. Stardust-NExT is a low-cost mission that will expand the investigation of comet Tempel 1 initiated by NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft. JPL, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages Stardust-NExT for the NASA Science Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. Joe Veverka of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., is the mission's principal investigator. Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Denver, built the spacecraft and manages day-to-day mission operations. For more information about Stardust-NExT, please visit http://stardustnext.jpl.nasa.gov. The original NASA image has been modified by addition of dates to the TIFF version and conversion to JPEG format.

No mention of the separate issue of the discovery of surface water ice there because the image is not about the discovery of surface water ice !
The Tempel 1 article only has the detection of water ice in the Deep Impact ejecta.

NASA has Deep Impact Team Reports First Evidence of Cometary [Water] Ice (2006)

Comet Tempel 1, which created a flamboyant Fourth of July fireworks display in space last year, is covered with a small amount of water ice. These results, reported by members of NASA's Deep Impact team in an advanced online edition of Science, offer the first definitive evidence of surface ice on any comet.

A rational person would not expect the receding ice cliffs mentioned here and they are not!
A smart person would look at the image and see the water ice was detected in a different part of the comet from the receding ice cliffs above (the top of the left hand image has a place that water ice was detected).

Other questions are

1. Why would anyone retain the delusion that comets are rocks for over a decade (Thunderbolts) at least 6 years (you) given the discovery of water ice on the surface of a comet, the observation of receding ICY cliffs, the impact of Deep Impact into not a rock, the measurement of ices and dust on comets, the measurement of ices and dust in Deep Impact ejecta and the measured density of comets, Sol88?
2. Why would you have the fantasy that Talbot's delusion about EDM on comets is supported by images of a comet made up of ices and dust such as Tempel 1, Sol88?
3. Why would you mindlessly parrot that EDM delusion applying to "our Moon's maria, Mercury's basins, Mars basins, Io, Pluto ... , Sol88?!

 

[jonesdave116]

So the combination of both mechanisms H- making Hydride's and OH- recombine with solar wind protons still won't raise an eyebrow??

Even if when they're directed as particle beams and not averaged out over the whole solar wind, as assumed here?

Still the dirtysnowball is a dead in the water theory!!

Did David Talbott claim "unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus" as a PREDICTION that has now been confirmed??

Lol. Particle beams. And the evidence for these is.....? And how does Rosetta keep managing to avoid it/ them? More magical thinking to back up an evidence free faith based delusion. Bring on the electrical fairies.

 

[jonesdave116]

I'd also like Reality Check to explain to me this PREDICTION:



When we see "Rocks" every where

EVERYBODY can see they are "rocks" but YOU must not say ROCK. What are the boulders made out of then , Reality Check, Tusenfem? "ICE"????

Why aren't they sublimating then?

Perhaps you'd care to give us your view on what the bright patches here actually are:

Electrical woo? Calcium carbonate? Cocaine?

How do you know they aren't sublimating? Reference? These pics were taken some time ago from a close orbit. At the current orbital distance they cannot be resolved. You'll have to wait until after perihelion for a closer look.
Like I said, still batting zero, and still can't explain the density.