Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[Sol88]

Strongly-consolidated materials

What's that in mainstream comet speak, Jonesdave116?

 

[Sol88]

@Jonedave116

Strongly-consolidated materials

What's that in mainstream comet speak?

Ongoing analysis of the Multi-purpose Sen-
sors for Surface and Subsurface Science (MUPUS)
penetrator data [9] or future Philae activities may fur-
ther constrain some of the parameters and test our pre-
dictions of the consolidated materials’ strength and its
composition.

I remember MUPUS not being able to penetrate even a tiny fraction into the "Strongly-consolidated materials"!

 

[tusenfem]

Ummmmm.......ok

So what's going on in the standard mainstream theory on dirtysnowballs?

how much ice found on the surface?

Who writes this suff?

Yeah, that should have read "from beneath the surface"

And I have no idea who is writing suff.

 

[Sol88]

This is silly, you have the known mass of the orbiting satellite, you have the know mass of the comet from orbital mechanics, you have the volume of the comet.

So where exactly is the density problem?

Ummmm.....again

Strongly-consolidated regions represent the most common region type on both lobes. Most of these regions show variable degrees of fracturing, which include irregular
or regular systems as well as ,polygonal, conjugate,regularly intersecting or ortho-rombic networks. The ubiquitous presence of fractured materials on the surface of the comet is of paramount significance for a body that displays a very low bulk density of ~0.5 kg/m3

YOU have a problem DD

 

[jonesdave116]

@Tusenfem



Ummmmm.......ok



So what's going on in the standard mainstream theory on dirtysnowballs?

how much ice found on the surface?

Who writes this suff?

When are you going to get it through your head that surface ice is not required for the observed sublimation at this or any other comet? All it needs is enough heat to penetrate the thin dust/ organics layer, and ices will sublimate. We know there is a dusty/ organic layer. We also know there is ice beneath the surface, as proven at Tempel 1.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us the temperature required for electric gubbins to heat a rock to the point where it releases O? And then explain how the solar wind suddenly increases by umpteen orders of magnitude to somehow (unexplained) create H2O near the surface, before it all gets photodissociated again?
As I keep saying; where is the evidence?

ETA:
They've found more surface ice than they've found rock.

 

[Sol88]

In this very low power comet, dust is levitated electrostaticaly, charged by various plasma effects and accelerated away from the nucleus.

At some distance (not far according to MIRO and ALICE) the dust at lower energies and sputted ROCK at higher energies is dissociated and recombined into the measured OH and CO along with a fruit salad of other molecules, element and compounds and accelerated along the magnetic field lines!

Simple really.

sputtered refractory elements from the surface of the comet.

Prediction confirmed!

 

[jonesdave116]

Ummmm.....again

YOU have a problem DD

Not sure what they were saying there, but it never made it into the paper.
This did, however: "On Earth and other planetary bodies such as Mars, the presence of thermal contraction polygons is a strong indicator of the presence of subsurface ice."

 

[Sol88]

Except you have no reason to believe it's rock. Density is wrong, outgassing products are wrong (where's the Si?), no electrical woo has been observed or detected, and a meteorite impact into rock would have left a much differently shaped crater than this.
All of the papers from this and many other comets that I've read show no unexpected anomalies in jet emission speeds, so not sure where you made that up from.
Maybe you need that lame a*se David Talbott back here to help you? Although, having read through his entire contribution yesterday, maybe not. Didn't really contribute much, did he? See my link to his predictions, above. Care to summarise how the "scientific" predictions of this non-science qualified fantasist are actually going at this stage? I'll give you a clue; more than -1 but less than +1. He should stick to petroglyphs. Von Daniken made a fortune out of that woo. Complete bobbins, of course, but at least he was good at it. Sold millions. Never mind SAFIRE, with that sort of money you could build a whole new Sun!

My bold!

Silicon,28Si, represents the most dominant sputtered species observed by ROSINA DFMS

LINK

What say ye 'ol mate?

 

[jonesdave116]

full paper in your mailbox

Cheers for that. Much appreciated.

 

[Sol88]

When are you going to get it through your head that surface ice is not required for the observed sublimation at this or any other comet? All it needs is enough heat to penetrate the thin dust/ organics layer, and ices will sublimate. We know there is a dusty/ organic layer. We also know there is ice beneath the surface, as proven at Tempel 1.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us the temperature required for electric gubbins to heat a rock to the point where it releases O? And then explain how the solar wind suddenly increases by umpteen orders of magnitude to somehow (unexplained) create H2O near the surface, before it all gets photodissociated again?
As I keep saying; where is the evidence?

ETA:
They've found more surface ice than they've found rock.

Ya tripper!

and high surface temperatures suggestive of
a dry, porous, and poorly thermal conductive surface

but the ice is just far enough to porduce your sublimation...sounds like a fairytale. not too hot, not too cold but just right!

You tell ME how far the heat penetrates!

 

[jonesdave116]

My bold!

LINK

What say ye 'ol mate?

What do you think the dust is primarily made of (excluding the primeval stuff)?
Iron? Cobalt? What did the planets accrete from? What gets lofted into space every time a rocky body is impacted? It has been known for decades that cometary dust includes silicates. So your point is?
Where is the exposed rock? There isn't any. You are talking about tiny little grains, as seen by the GIADA instrument months ago.

 

[Belz...]

Cats now out of the bag now HOLGER SIERKS!

Now one here going to have a crack at how the cliffs drive the jets?

Pressure is on YOU to explain YOUR SUBLIMATION theory.

You REQUIRE subsurface ice!

You REQUIRE pressurised chambers!

You REQUIRE the nozzle to be of a smaller diameter to the chamber, to sustain the jets!

So how do the cliffs drive the activity?

and why would the OSIRIS team not release the images after a year of observation???


People are asking..

You isn't people.

 

[Sol88]

Not for you: I know that you are too obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to ever accept any explanation for anything from anyone.

If I had the time then I would explain it in a separate post to lurkers. But I suspect that they are smart enough to learn this stuff for themselves. They should not be ignorant enough to stick with the delusion that comets are rocks for over 6 years despite the evidence that comets are not rocks.

The lurkers already know how delusional the EC idea is (see my signature) and can read about the ignorance, delusions and lies of the Thunderbolts crowd that you are parroting.

Have another crack RC!

Then

 

[Belz...]

yeah thought so too

Typical woo tactic: refuse to accept evidence until other posters give up, and then declare victory.


Ignorants.

 

[Sol88]

What do you think the dust is primarily made of (excluding the primeval stuff)?
Iron? Cobalt? What did the planets accrete from? What gets lofted into space every time a rocky body is impacted? It has been known for decades that cometary dust includes silicates. So your point is?
Where is the exposed rock? There isn't any. You are talking about tiny little grains, as seen by the GIADA instrument months ago.

Conclusions & implications:
Strongly-consolidated regions represent the most common region type on both lobes. Most of these regions show variable degrees of fracturing,

Fractured dust...that's a newy

 

[Sol88]

Typical woo tactic: refuse to accept evidence until other posters give up, and then declare victory.


Ignorants.

Doubt it!

mainstreams language is changing, perihelion is close and the deal was even OSIRIS is to release hi-def images on that day and well it looks like rock (sorry Strongly-consolidated regions) people (i am a person) will ask "why does it look like rock"

you told us it was fluffy dust because of the density this paper says

Strongly-consolidated regions represent the most common region type on both lobes. Most of these regions show variable degrees of fracturing, which include irregular
or regular systems as well as ,polygonal, conjugate,regularly intersecting or ortho-rombic networks. The ubiquitous presence of fractured materials on the surface of the comet is of paramount significance for a body that displays a very low bulk density of ~0.5 kg/m3

Why is it paramount significance, Belz?

(paramount

adjective
1.
chief in importance or impact; supreme; preeminent: )

 

[jonesdave116]

Ya tripper!



but the ice is just far enough to porduce your sublimation...sounds like a fairytale. not too hot, not too cold but just right!

You tell ME how far the heat penetrates!

Your ignorance of science, and a continued belief in an evidence free faith based delusion is not an argument I'm afraid. How thick is the dust layer? Does it vary? Are there exposed areas of ice around cliffs, pits etc? What is all that stuff coming off of the comet? Where does it come from? What did Deep Impact excavate from below the surface of Tempel 1? Not rock, that's for sure.
Instead of using your ignorance of science to argue against it, why not give us the evidence for the idiotic EC hypothesis. Where are all the glows and discharges? Where are the temperature anomalies? How come all this activity is almost exclusively confined to the sunlit side of the comet?
What was it the eejit Thornhill said? Something about O being relaesed by electric woo, and then combining with H from the solar wind in the tail? And scientists were confused into thinking this was actual H2O? So how come IT IS actual H2O, and it is seen on the sunward facing side?
Like I keep having to say; you have zero evidence for this crackpottery, which is why real science, and the scientifically literate treat is as such.

 

[Sol88]

Typical woo tactic: refuse to accept evidence until other posters give up, and then declare victory.


Ignorants.

Give it a go then mate!

 

[Sol88]

Your ignorance of science, and a continued belief in an evidence free faith based delusion is not an argument I'm afraid. How thick is the dust layer? Does it vary? Are there exposed areas of ice around cliffs, pits etc? What is all that stuff coming off of the comet? Where does it come from? What did Deep Impact excavate from below the surface of Tempel 1? Not rock, that's for sure.
Instead of using your ignorance of science to argue against it, why not give us the evidence for the idiotic EC hypothesis. Where are all the glows and discharges? Where are the temperature anomalies? How come all this activity is almost exclusively confined to the sunlit side of the comet?
What was it the eejit Thornhill said? Something about O being relaesed by electric woo, and then combining with H from the solar wind in the tail? And scientists were confused into thinking this was actual H2O? So how come IT IS actual H2O, and it is seen on the sunward facing side?
Like I keep having to say; you have zero evidence for this crackpottery, which is why real science, and the scientifically literate treat is as such.

My bold

cough cough ahhemm

Most of the sputtered atoms come from the winter side of the comet. Although this is the hemisphere that is mostly facing away from the Sun at present, solar wind particles can end up striking the surface because they are deflected during interactions with ions in the comet’s coma. This can be a significant process so long as the density of the coma ions is not too large.

LINK

In addition to the volatile material, we detected atoms of C,
O, Na, K, Si, Ca, and S, which can at best only be partially set
free through sublimation or are fragments of sublimed molecules

 

[Belz...]

Give it a go then mate!

I've already said my piece on the matter, but as per my woo-plan outlined above, you just ignored every piece of evidence and reason thrown at you by everyone because it doesn't fit with the conclusion you want. Ergo, it's pointless to engage you except to ridicule your pet theory. You can declare victory all you want: you've already lost.