Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
jonesdave116 said:
Perhaps you'd care to give us your view on what the bright patches here actually are:

[qimg]http://i61.tinypic.com/24lodpe.jpg[/qimg]

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.
Click to expand...

Hey I'd be prepared to give you "it's ice" 'cos it's blue and where all know ice is kinda blue but is there enough to explain the sublimation???

Each channel was stretched and slightly saturated to emphasis the contrasts of colour across the scene such that dark terrains appear redder and bright regions appear significantly bluer compared with what a human eye would normally see.
While various ices mixed with dust would be consistent with the blue signature, taken with other observations, the various properties of the bright patches point to water-ice.
Click to expand...

So bit of stretching and saturating gives blue ice....Love science!!!
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Sorry, or beam like!
Click to expand...

And for the zillionth time, the solar wind proton flux is nowhere near high enough, by many orders of magnitude, to produce even 1 litre of water. How many times do you need telling?
And of course they're in the direction of the solar wind! It comes from the Sun. That does not make it a beam. Ye Gods. Sunlit part of the comet faces the Sun. Dark bit doesn't. Understand? NOT A BEAM.

ETA
If you don't understand the significance of this, let me spell it out: the solar wind ions are interacting with the neutral gas sublimation products of the comet. It naturally does this at the parts of the comet facing the Sun and, therefore, the solar wind. With me so far? It doesn't do this on the parts of the comet not subjected to the solar wind. Okay.
So if the negative ions were produced by some electric woo on the surface, they would be evenly spread over the whole comet, dark and sunlit, given that electric woo is not dependent on sunlight or solar wind. They aren't. So no electric woo needed.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Hey I'd be prepared to give you "it's ice" 'cos it's blue and where all know ice is kinda blue but is there enough to explain the sublimation???



So bit of stretching and saturating gives blue ice....Love science!!!
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And the stunning scientifically sound evidence from your faith based delusion? As I've said, zero. Pareidolia and petroglyphs. Very scientific.
 
Sol88 said:
Hey I'd be prepared to give you "it's ice" 'cos it's blue and where all know ice is kinda blue but is there enough to explain the sublimation???
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying the whole of the sublimation is coming from observed icy boulders. There have been mountains of papers produced about the results obtained from observing comets over the last 30 years or so. Why don't you try reading some of them?
There is subsurface ice. Deep impact PROVED that. How many times do you need it spelled out? Do I need to reference the paper again, or just copy and paste the whole thing here?
 
"Now withness the firepower of this fully armed and operational, err uh, 0.47 gm/cm3 collection of ices and dust!"
 
Sol88 said:
Hey I'd be prepared to give you "it's ice" 'cos it's blue and where all know ice is kinda blue but is there enough to explain the sublimation???
Click to expand...
Oh dear, Sol88 - you are really determined to emphasize your ignorance :p!
The blue color is nothing to do with the composition of the bright patches.
The bright batches are on a surface made of a layer of dust on top of ices.
No one should be idiotic enough to think that sublimation only happens in a few bright patches on the surface of comets. Comets are made of ices and dust. Sublimation happens everywhere that the conditions are favorable for sublimation (basically anywhere in the top layer of the surface of the comet nucleus).
A statement about "stretching and saturating gives blue ice" is a lie, Sol88.
This is what the full caption for the ESA blog
Examples of icy bright patches seen on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko during September 2014. The two left hand images are subsets of OSIRIS narrow-angle camera images acquired on 5 September; the right hand images were acquired on 16 September. During this time the spacecraft was about 30-40 km from the comet centre. The images are false colour red-green-blue composites assembled from monochrome images acquired at different times with the 882.1nm (red), 649.2nm (green) and 360.0nm (blue) channels. Each channel was stretched and slightly saturated to emphasis the contrasts of colour across the scene such that dark terrains appear redder and bright regions appear significantly bluer compared with what a human eye would normally see.
While various ices mixed with dust would be consistent with the blue signature, taken with other observations, the various properties of the bright patches point to water-ice.
Read the last highlighted paragraph, Sol88.

The paper is OSIRIS observations of meter-size exposures of H2O ice at the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and interpretation using laboratory experiments so those other observations include experiments done on mixes of ices and dust in laboratories here on Earth (the holy grail of the deluded Thunderbolts crowd!)
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
Nobody is saying the whole of the sublimation is coming from observed icy boulders. There have been mountains of papers produced about the results obtained from observing comets over the last 30 years or so. Why don't you try reading some of them?
There is subsurface ice. Deep impact PROVED that. How many times do you need it spelled out? Do I need to reference the paper again, or just copy and paste the whole thing here?
Click to expand...

Really LINK

Not what I read
"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." - See more at: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2005-23#sthash.mQE4W0hh.dpuf
Click to expand...

SNIP

Deep Impact was intended to test these theories by excavating material from the comet's interior, giving scientists clues to its composition and structure. The mission succeeded admirably, pulverizing a section of the comet larger than a house and releasing tons of material into space.

SWAS operators were puzzled by the lack of increased water vapor from Tempel 1. Post-impact measurements showed the comet was releasing only about 550 pounds of water per second-an emission rate very similar to pre-impact values, and less than seen by SWAS during natural outbursts in the weeks before the impact.
- See more at: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2005-23#sthash.mQE4W0hh.dpuf
Click to expand...

So lots of DUST (Pulverized rock) and NO ICE :eye-poppi

SWAS operators were puzzled by the lack of increased water vapor from Tempel 1
Click to expand...
As they would be if they were EXPECTING ice! They were wrong!!
 
Sol88 said:
Not just me 'ol mate, everyone but the "mainstreamers"!
Click to expand...
That is a lie, Sol88. Read the post on the ESA blog site where it explicitly states that other observations allow the distinction between the bright patches being a mixture of ices and dust (the non-delusional composition of comets) and water ice. This is really simple:
Non-delusional people
  • look at those images and see bright patches.
  • know that comets are made of ices and dust, e.g. because of their measured densities.
  • know these bright patches are made of a mixture of ices and dust that is different from the mixture of ices and dust that surround them (thus they are bright!).
  • look at other observations such as experiments here on Earth and conclude that the patches match the properties of water ice.
 
Sol88 said:
Really LINK
Click to expand...
Really - you are so ignorant that you think that a news release is a paper, Sol88 :eek:? Or that scientists stopped studying Tempel 1 on Thursday, July 7, 2005?
That is especially delusional when the paper has been cited to you before - but I will not waste my time doing that again.

Deep Impact Was a Dust-up, Not a Gusher
The new release from Thursday, July 7, 2005 states that Tempel 1 was releasing water before the impact and after the impact. That water comes from sublimating ICES. It is thus a lie to state that there was NO ICE.

People expected increased water vapor after the Deep Impact event because the impact would have added heat locally to Tempel 1 and thus sublimated ices around the impact. The people in that 2005 news release did not have an explanation.

No one who looks at the Deep Impact event would be stupid enough to think that this was an impact with a rock. You and the Thunderbolts crowd are still afraid to do 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.
That is 28 days of fear of physics and counting (10 years for Thunderbolts) :p!
 
Last edited:
People expected increased water vapor after the Deep Impact event because the impact would have added heat locally to Tempel 1 and thus sublimated ices around the impact. The people in that 2005 news release did not have an explanation.
Click to expand...

:dig:

And still have no explanation!!!

If there was no increase in water vapor then there was no ICE excavated/sublimating/Hidden...there your explination 'ol mate :rolleyes:
 
Sol88 said:
Really LINK

Not what I read

SNIP



So lots of DUST (Pulverized rock) and NO ICE :eye-poppi

As they would be if they were EXPECTING ice! They were wrong!!
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. Read the paper. Again. Properly. There was ice, and plenty of it. No amount of selective reading can explain it away. From 2007;
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3546.pdf

"Thus, water ice is present in the interior of Tempel 1 at least to the
maximum depth ejected by the impact, ∼10 to 20 m."
One little snippet to be getting on with, before you read the whole paper, again. Properly.
 
Sol88 said:
:dig:

And still have no explanation!!!

If there was no increase in water vapor then there was no ICE excavated/sublimating/Hidden...there your explination 'ol mate :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

For God's sake. That was 3 days after the event. They hadn't even had the spacecraft data to look at, nor the SWIFT data, that looked at it for a good while afterwards.
As I've said, read the damn paper. It was H20. End of story. Indisputable. Impactor makes hole in comet. Water comes out. Directly observed. As did a lot of dust. Now what do the mainstream say comets are made of? That's right, ice and dust.
You may also want to check out the SWIFT data, which puts the lie to the eejit Thornhill's claims of double flashes and electric outbursts.
 
Sol88 said:
And still have no explanation!!!
Click to expand...
Which is a lie unless you can show that there have been no papers explaining this published since 2005, Sol88!!!
Your ignorance and delusions about comets (comets are not rocks) does not means that scientists are ignorant or deluded about comets or stopped researching comets in 2005
:dl:
 
Sol88 said:
:dig:

And still have no explanation!!!

If there was no increase in water vapor then there was no ICE excavated/sublimating/Hidden...there your explination 'ol mate :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

"Applying the model over the period 0-12 days after impact
shows that an enhanced water and/or carbon dioxide production rate, a factor of ~2.5 greater than the quiescent level, was
responsible for an extended soft X-ray outburst from the comet.
If this outburst was caused by the DI impact, water ice or other
volatiles must have been exposed at the surface by the collision
or initially shed as small grains rather than neutral gas. The exposed surface and/or the grains then sublimed over a period of
12 days."
From: http://www.researchgate.net/profile..._Collision/links/0fcfd506793048b153000000.pdf

"Strong water ice absorptions at 3 µm are observed with the IR spectrometer within 3 s of the impact (after the passage of the shocked vapor plume) and remain throughout the DI flyby observations, ∼45 min after impact. The presence of a strong 3 µm absorption band in the DI IR spectra is consistent with the change in slope detected in broad-band IR photometric observations of the impact event with ground-based telescopes (Schulz et al., 2006;
Knight et al., 2007). Furthermore, the spectra confirm that the change in slope is in fact due to water ice in the impact ejecta, as postulated by these researchers."
From: http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3546.pdf
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
No, you are wrong. Read the paper. Again. Properly. There was ice, and plenty of it. No amount of selective reading can explain it away. From 2007;
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3546.pdf

"Thus, water ice is present in the interior of Tempel 1 at least to the
maximum depth ejected by the impact, ∼10 to 20 m."
One little snippet to be getting on with, before you read the whole paper, again. Properly.
Click to expand...

Sniff sniff mmmmm......

The distribution of water ice on the surface of Tempel 1 ob-
served by DI is restricted to three discrete and relatively small
areas, none of which were near the location of the impact.
Sunshine et al. (2006a)
note that the amount of surface water
ice is insufficient to support the ambient outgassing observed
for Tempel 1, and call for sub-surface (but presumably near sur-
face) sources of water
Click to expand...

and no ICE (light frosting in three areas, but no mention of any ICE cliffs (retreating or not) was observed at any time during the DI mission, it's implied from IR observations...so back to square on...unless you'd like to have a crack at the double flash predicted by Wal Thornhill

I mean they had some seroius trouble because of the dust along with
A’Hearn et al. (2005)
describe in detail the first component
from the impact event, highly shocked material moving down-
range at a velocity of∼10 km s−1
. The brightness of the visible
data suggest the melting of silicates (Melosh, 2006), whereas Schultz et al. (2007b) propose that the visible self-luminous
plume may be due to carbon from thermally disassociated organics. The IR spectra of this vapor plume include emission from H2O, CO2 and organics, which are consistent with gases at temperatures of∼1000–2000 K.
Click to expand...

Silicates including Extremely high temperature flash melted silicates like we find commonly in ROCK
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom