"The dust component may be comparable, from the dielectric properties, to that of carbonaceous chondritic meteorites."
Carbonaceous chondrites: "...have not undergone significant heating (>200°C) since they formed, and their compositions are considered to be close to that of the solar nebula from which the Solar System condensed." Without trawling through all my papers from this mission, I seem to remember that the K/Na ratio in the sputtered products most resembled CCs as well. This is an argument for a primeval origin of comets, and argues against them being blasted off a planet. Not sure why you'd bring it up.
"These images reveal a fractured surface with complex structure and a variety of grain scales and albedos, possibly constituting pristine cometary material."
So? And the point is? Nothing there for the EC fantasy.
"Taken together, these first measurements performed at the surface of 67P profoundly modify our view of comets."
Again, so? They have found things out that they didn't know previously. That is why we do missions like this. As the next sentence says, "67P is nonmagnetized on a scale of less than a meter.....", again, an argument against electric woo. Hard sintered ice may have been a surprise as well. None of this helps EC.
"The average permittivity is about 1.27, suggesting that this region has a volumetric dust/ice ratio of 0.4 to 2.6 and a porosity of 75 to 85%."
Again, I fail to see what you're point is. The ratio of dust to ice is somewhere between 0.4:1 and 2.6:1, if I read it correctly. The porosity of the lobe is 75-85%. Which we've been telling you all along, to account for the density. It is a huge dollop of proof that this isn't a rock.
"These data also provide information on the mechanical properties (strength and layering) of the comet surface. The first touchdown site, Agilkia, appears to have a granular soft surface (with a compressive strength of 1 kilopascal) at least ~20 cm thick, possibly on top of a more rigid layer. The final landing site, Abydos, has a hard surface."
So, the first place it touched down had a thick dust layer, over harder sintered ice below, and the final resting place didn't have the thick dust layer. Nothing Earth shattering there.
"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 [2], and high surface temperatures suggestive of a dry, porous, and poorly thermally conductive surface [8]."
Again, so what? From the published paper (the above was just from a poster presentation); "Tensile fractures develop in materials through two common processes: 1) loss of volatile material (e.g. desiccation), and 2) thermal contraction/expansion. The near vacuum conditions and the high fluctuations in temperature on diurnal and seasonal scales (from <80 °K in shadow to ~350 °K in illuminated regions near perihelion) suggest that thermal contraction/expansion or insolation weathering is the most likely candidate in forming these types of fractures. Nonetheless, the effect of sublimation-driven desiccation of an ice-rich material should be further investigated to assess its feasibility and extent."
And as for the "significance", they explain that "The presence of fractures on the surface potentially formed by thermal insolation weathering may indicate considerable compositional and structural heterogeneity. Alternatively, it may indicate the presence of thin dusty coatings overlying materials of higher thermal inertia and ability to fracture." So that would likely be the sintered dust/ ice mixture below. Again, nothing here for the EC idea.
Pretty much everything you highlighted are actually arguments against it!
So, do please spell out the problems for the sublimation theory, as seen by a non-scientist, because I can't see it.
!
!
