Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[Sol88]

Do not lie, Sol88: MUPUS could not penetrate a layer of hard ice.
28 July 2015 Sol88: You are too obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to ever accept any explanation for anything from anyone.

Get your hand off it RC!

MUPUS could not penetrate the hard layer, which in mainstream comet parlance is "ice," sintered ice at that, because YOU KNOW it can not be rock!

So you paint yourself into a corner, if it's hard it's ice, if it's bluer it ice, if it's shiny it's ice problem is NO ICE

but don't let that spoil a good story!

A long time ago when the solar system formed from a collapsing dust cloud.....ohh there is your (first) mistake

 

[Sol88]

Science on the surface of a comet from 30 July 2015

has some good science not mentioned here.
One thing is that the bounces were actually good because they gave a opportunity to compare sites

and since MUPUS has been mentioned:

(something else for Sol88 not to learn!)
and

About 6 times more ice than dust. A porosity that is a bit less than pumice (average of 90%)
Where is Sol88's delusion about rock

you cant see the blinding contradiction here??

They think it's ice NOT they have confirmed ice. So how do you reconcile the fact the surface is dust over a hard layer that's 75-80% porous and MUPUS could not hammer into it even on power level 4

just lucky to hit a sintered ice layer?

 

[Reality Check]

...MUPUS ranting snipped...

7 August 2015 Sol88: That is a le about MUPUS trying to penetrate PUMICE - it tried to penetrate ice.

 

[Reality Check]

..snipped ranting ..

The lie about MUPUS and pumice or rock remains: 7 August 2015 Sol88: That is a le about MUPUS trying to penetrate PUMICE - it tried to penetrate ice.

Plus:
Inability to understand English: MUPUS could not get through a layer of ice at Abydos. The data from the bounce at Agilkia suggests a softer surface.
Delusion that the word "think" appear in my quotes from that blog article .
Stupid question repeated about MUPUS that ignores:

That pretty but idiotic picture just emphasizes that you remain ignorant about he properties of ice. As stated before the tensile strength of ice can exceed that measured by MUPUS.

No point in actually citing this fact for you since 28 July 2015 Sol88: You are too obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to ever accept any explanation for anything from anyone.

 

[Reality Check]

Whoops. Looks like the thunderdoldts crew are starting to fall out over this; http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15881

Highly amusing.

Yes, that "Why Hasn't Rosetta Made the Electric Comet Obvious Yet?" thread is amusing.
Rossim is trying to keep other posters from derailing into "what a conspiracy theorist would say" or just insulting astronomers or writing "incredibly vague" statements.
querious makes a good point: if people think that the "Most of the discharge occurs facing the source of the electrical field/current" means that jets have to face the Sun then why are there jets that do not face the Sun!

 

[Matthew Cline]

Ha ha ha that's rich sport, you have obliviously never seen the ROCK form that resemble the ridges and scarps on a comets (and moons, asteroids and planets)

So, once more, we're back to "it looks like a rock, therefore it is a rock".

 

[tusenfem]

I do not think "rossim" will last much longer at thunderdolts if they continue like that.

 

[ferd burfle]

Well looks like they (OSIRIS) have low and behold http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/06/comet_on_4_june/14582721-1-eng-GB/Comet_on_4_June_node_full_image_2.png

and there you have it PROOF comets are electric discharge phenomena!

What am I looking at? I see a dot with a red ring around it. Is that one of your Electic Sharpshooter Fallacy circles?

no that's the OSIRIS image of comet 67P

And there we have your delusions about comet images yet again, Sol88!
In this case you have gone totally deluded with a circle added to an image being "electric discharge phenomena"

Just for those who might have missed it, RC has caught what might be the biggest howler ever from an EC proponent. Like Jrrarglblarg, my reaction to the image Sol posted was puzzlement/WTF. But RC correctly fathomed the unfathomable, that indeed a red circle added to indicate which object in the photo is 67P became an "electrical discharge phenomena" thanks to the magic of EC pareidolia. RC, how on earth did you manage to limit yourself to just one laughing dog?

 

[The Moog]

Well looks like they (OSIRIS) have low and behold http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/06/comet_on_4_june/14582721-1-eng-GB/Comet_on_4_June_node_full_image_2.png

and there you have it PROOF comets are electric discharge phenomena!

Where is this proof in the image? What here do you think is an 'electric discharge phenomena'?

 

[Dancing David]

and the last kind, those that think outside the indoctrination of modern teaching and ask questions!

Except there are some questions you ignore like:

1. Where is the evidence for electrical fields sufficient to make comets glow?

Just answer that one.

 

[jonesdave116]

you cant see the blinding contradiction here??

They think it's ice NOT they have confirmed ice. So how do you reconcile the fact the surface is dust over a hard layer that's 75-80% porous and MUPUS could not hammer into it even on power level 4

just lucky to hit a sintered ice layer?

You can't see the blinding misunderstanding here? Nobody has said the hard layer is 75-85% porous. The radio wave sent by the orbiter through the lobe of the comet to Philae, shows a BULK porosity of the LOBE of 75-85 %. That is, the average porosity of the lobe from where the wave entered it to where it exited it. The vast majority of the material that the radio wave traveled through is the material below the hard layer. That is, its innards.
And to quote from "MUPUS insertion device for the Rosetta mission", they say that "The attempts to insert the penetrator into the ice were moderately successful. If its strength did not exceed 3 MPa, the penetrator worked fine. Above this limit, it could only be inserted to a certain depth and then got stuck in the ice." This was from pre-mission testing. Ice at the temperatures prevalent on 67P will likely have a compressive strength above this. Google "compressive strength of ice."

 

[Sol88]

Surface dust correlates to the composition of the body of the comet how, why do orbital mechanics say the density of the comet is not that of solid rock?

Most of the surface of the earth is water, so your conclusion from evaporated clouds off the oceans is that the earth is composed mostly of water?

Because the big G is a fib leading to believe 67P

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

There is also a tendency to make grandiose assumptions. Turning to New- ton’s law again, ‘G’ or ‘big G’ is given the grand title “the universal constant of gravitation.” But repeated experiments show that it is not even constant on Earth! What is worse, it has the dimensions of length cubed, divided by mass and by time squared. It has been argued that physical constants should be dimensionless. The “...questioning the constancy of fundamental parameters is essentially trying to under- stand a more fundamental theory behind” [46]. If mass is an electromagnetic variable dependent on the distribution of matter and charge, then ‘G’ is different for every celestial body! This means, in practice, that we cannot derive the den- sities or composition of any celestial body by its size and calculated mass.

LINK

And from that you have YOUR PARAMOUNT SIGNIFICANCE!!

s you can see from the plot, these first results show that among the grain’s components are magnesium and sodium. Since 95 percent of the known observed minerals in comets resemble olivine and pyroxenes – containing a lot of magnesium

Looks like, taste like rock, hard like rock, composition like rock, sputtered refactory minerals like rock, but is sintered ice and dust!

Brilliant!

actually quite funny watching all the ad hoc explanations because of the basic error of having unshakable faith and belief in G being constant...

 

[Sol88]

on that question, joensdave116, what is the specify gravity of "sintered ice and dust"????

 

[ferd burfle]

Because the big G is a fib leading to believe 67P

LINK

And from that you have YOUR PARAMOUNT SIGNIFICANCE!!



Looks like, taste like rock, hard like rock, composition like rock, sputtered refactory minerals like rock, but is sintered ice and dust!

Brilliant!

actually quite funny watching all the ad hoc explanations because of the basic error of having unshakable faith and belief in G being constant...

What I wouldn't give to see Uncle Wally standing in front of a lecture hall full of undergrads at MIT, explaining to them that big G isn't a constant because it varies from place to place on the surface of the earth. Sol, did you not read the wiki article you linked or did you not understand it?

 

[Sol88]

What I wouldn't give to see Uncle Wally standing in front of a lecture hall full of undergrads at MIT, explaining to them that big G isn't a constant because it varies from place to place on the surface of the earth. Sol, did you not read the wiki article you linked or did you not understand it?

Yeah it would be hilarious in front of all the indoctrinated plebs asking is he right? Is G constant? Are what the grand poobahs tells us unquestionable truth or could they be wrong?

But if you question the poobahs... Your out of the club.

 

[ferd burfle]

Yeah it would be hilarious in front of all the indoctrinated plebs asking is he right? Is G constant? Are what the grand poobahs tells us unquestionable truth or could they be wrong?

But if you question the poobahs... Your out of the club.

No, they'd be too busy laughing at the buffoonery of the guy who doesn't understand the difference between big G, the universal gravitational constant that is in fact a constant and little g, the local gravitational constant that varies depending on location. Something you might now know had you not been too lazy to read the very first paragraph in the wiki article you linked. Honest, Sol, acquiring knowledge is quite painless, you really ought to try it sometime.

Now tell me the one about the red circle in the photo again, because that's not getting old any time soon.

 

[The Moog]

Err, but getting back to the earlier proof you posted...

Well looks like they (OSIRIS) have low and behold http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/06/comet_on_4_june/14582721-1-eng-GB/Comet_on_4_June_node_full_image_2.png

and there you have it PROOF comets are electric discharge phenomena!

Where is this proof in the image? What here do you think is an 'electric discharge phenomena'?
I'm sure we would all like some convincing proof but there seems to be nothing there.

 

[jonesdave116]

Because the big G is a fib leading to believe 67P

LINK

And from that you have YOUR PARAMOUNT SIGNIFICANCE!!



Looks like, taste like rock, hard like rock, composition like rock, sputtered refactory minerals like rock, but is sintered ice and dust!

Brilliant!

actually quite funny watching all the ad hoc explanations because of the basic error of having unshakable faith and belief in G being constant...

So, tell us again about gravity. How is it appearing to be different at this comet than any other celestial body we've ever visited? What is the mechanism? You obviously have only the very vaguest (if any) idea about science, so this should be fun.
Did you bother to look at the sputtering yields in the paper? Did you see how much H20 is being detected in comparison? Did you bother to take any notice of the solar wind densities in any number of papers about this comet?
Did you bother to notice, or understand, the significance of the fact that the location of the sputtered material is totally anti-correlated to the volatile component?
What any of that has to do with electric woo is beyond me anyway. Where is it?
You're ignorance and misunderstanding of science does not a theory make. Just makes you look ignorant and misunderstanding.

 

[Sol88]

Err, but getting back to the earlier proof you posted...



Where is this proof in the image? What here do you think is an 'electric discharge phenomena'?
I'm sure we would all like some convincing proof but there seems to be nothing there.

"After a nominal period of 6 months, the scientific data themselves are to be delivered to ESA to be placed in the public domain via the Planetary Science Archive (PSA) for use by all scientists and the wider public. In practice, it was agreed to deliver data to ESA for release in blocks, and the first of those blocks was defined as the ‘pre-landing phase’, i.e. covering the period from January 2014 to just after Philae’s landing on the comet in mid-November 2014."

Yet somehow, Osiris images delivered today stop in June 2014. Let's call them underwhelming and uninteresting, to stay polite: a white dot on a grey background....

Why is that ?

Yeah, why is that?


As stated, just one pic of the "cliffs" driving the activity!

or even the "standing walls" 200m to 700m high, that'd be good too

 

[jonesdave116]

on that question, joensdave116, what is the specify gravity of "sintered ice and dust"????

And what the hell has that got to do with the price of fish? What is the specific gravity of diamond?
How thick do you think this layer is? I'm afraid, whether you like it or not, the gravity and bulk porosity (of the area that CONSERT measured, at least) is now a scientific fact.
The fact that Deep Impact excavated ice and dust from the sub-surface at Tempel 1 should have given you a clue 10 years ago as to the composition of comets.
Not our fault you chose to ignore it, and believe the lies that Thornhill continues to peddle.

Any evidence yet for this electric garbage?