Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[tusenfem]

Nice job tusenfem (and co-authors), can't wait till the movie comes out.

i asked peter jackson, it's going to be at least a trilogy

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Ignorant that the Solar System formed from a cloud of Hydrocarbons, Argon,...

That I thought was the primary mission, to you know turn the sublimation science fiction into science fact?

That would be two lies, Sol88.

1. You know that scientific evidence has existed that comets ices and dust for over 60 years. That comets sublimate ice has been science fact backed up by observations of ice and sublimation products over the last 60 years !
2. Rosetta: the ambition to turn science fiction into science fact (posted 24 October 2014) is not about sublimation !
   The article is about what this "icy treasure chest" could reveal about its makeup, history and the early Solar System.

There are more implied lies by omission. The article is from 24 October 2014. You are denying Rosetta results that have been announced in the past year about water ices, density, etc.
Rosetta reveals comet’s water-ice cycle
Science on the surface of a comet


Your ignorance is growing by leaps and bounds:

• In the real world the Solar System formed from a cloud of Hydrocarbons, Argon, Nitrogen.... and there were some left over !
• tholins did not exist until after the Solar System formed.

21 October 2015 Sol88: Ignorant that the Solar System formed from a cloud of Hydrocarbons, Argon, Nitrogen....
21 October 2015 Sol88: Ignorant about what tholins are.

on the other hand...

21 October 2015 Sol88: A lie about "a host of confirmation and surprises" for the EC delusion at 67P.

21 October 2015 Sol88: The repeated delusion that "surprises" support the EC delusion.

 

[Reality Check]

In the sublimating snowball theory the levitation and acceleration off dust of the surface of a comet by surface charging was never mentioned.

Things are getting bad when all you can do is resort to a lie that you know is a lie, Sol88.
You read the paper. You know that the levitation and acceleration of dust of the surface of a comet by surface charging has been analyzed by astronomers for a couple of decades, i.e. mentioned as part of a model of comets made of ices and dust for those 2 decades.
21 October 2015 Sol88: A lie about electrostatic levitation of dust not being mentioned in cometary science ("sublimating snowball theory").

Alternately this is could be the idiocy of defining "sublimating snowball theory" as the theory of sublimating ices on comets and expecting it to include electrostatic levitation of dust when you have excluded it!

ETA: Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity.
You read the paper, Sol88. You know that it is a model of a proposed process - not an observation. I have pointed this out several times. Thus "a paper stating as fact ..." is a lie.

Today starts really badly for you:

• A list of 14 items of ignorance. lies and delusions from Sol88 over the last 6 years.
• A couple of lies about the Rosetta: the ambition to turn science fiction into science fact article.
• 21 October 2015 Sol88: Ignorant that the Solar System formed from a cloud of Hydrocarbons, Argon, Nitrogen....
• 21 October 2015 Sol88: Ignorant about what tholins are.
• 21 October 2015 Sol88: A lie about "a host of confirmation and surprises" for the EC delusion at 67P.
• 21 October 2015 Sol88: The repeated delusion that "surprises" support the EC delusion (logical fallacy of false dichotomy).

111 days and counting of fear of 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.

 

[The Man]

i asked peter jackson, it's going to be at least a trilogy

Well, I was hoping for more of a thrillogy, but if you've got to stretch one paper into three movies, Jackson's the ticket.

 

[Matthew Cline]

And again, SPECIFICALLY, what is missing from the sublimation FACT (NOT THEORY)?

IIRC, Sol88 thinks that Philae should have included the equipment to take a core sample of the comet's ice, put the sample in a pressurized environment, melted it, and then done chemical analysis to verify it contained H20.

 

[jonesdave116]

IIRC, Sol88 thinks that Philae should have included the equipment to take a core sample of the comet's ice, put the sample in a pressurized environment, melted it, and then done chemical analysis to verify it contained H20.

Wouldn't have made any difference, mate. They would still have sworn it came from rock!!!!
Joke of a hypothesis; complete joke of people who actually believe that garbage. However, I guess they need something to do all day. Actual science has nothing to do with the things that they believe. It's just stuff that passes them by......

 

[tusenfem]

IIRC, Sol88 thinks that Philae should have included the equipment to take a core sample of the comet's ice, put the sample in a pressurized environment, melted it, and then done chemical analysis to verify it contained H20.

Well, of course, for that reason they have the COSAC instrument on Philae.
There was a presentation at this year's EGU. Although I see no papers yet from this instrument.
And there is the APXS instrument, Ptolomy, etc.
I am not sure how much data they have obtained in the active phase of Philae.

 

[Sol88]

Well, of course, for that reason they have the COSAC instrument on Philae.
There was a presentation at this year's EGU. Although I see no papers yet from this instrument.
And there is the APXS instrument, Ptolomy, etc.
I am not sure how much data they have obtained in the active phase of Philae.

The Philae probe was a failure due to expectations of what a comet is thought to be!!!

This brave little probe could of killed this thread dead but it failed smashing into the nucleus and bouncing uncontrolled across the comet.

on another note, well done mate on your paper

 

[Sol88]

Right, because electromagnetic induction creates strong electric fields I guess?
Did you even read the paper or understand what electromagnetic induction is?
Do you know what they mean with "poloidal field" etc.?
You can actually find the paper online in pdf, you don't have to work with an abstract alone.

Ummm.... it does induce an opposite charge from the comets ionosphere does it not?

One electrical device which serves as a model for cosmic plasma activity is the capacitor. A capacitor is a device for accumulating and storing electric charge. It is made of two conductors separated by an insulating medium. When charge is placed on one conductor it attracts charge of the opposite polarity on the other conductor. As a result, an electric field is set up between the conductors, a reservoir of electrical energy.

In both everyday electronics and advanced plasma research the capacitor is important for its ability to rapidly store and release electrical energy. Some of the highest energy experiments in the world are performed using large rooms full of charged capacitors to produce intense discharges.

As the charge on the capacitor increases, the electric field between the conductors will increase, placing a growing stress on the insulator. At some critical point, the insulator breaks down and the capacitor "short circuits," releasing the stored electrical energy suddenly. Such breakdowns may destroy a solid insulator and with it, the capacitor.

LINK

In this respect, Rosetta is
inside the comet ionosphere, providing excellent in
situ investigation opportunities for the instruments of
the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (RPC)

got any inside non gagged news Tusenfem???

In_situ investigations of the ionosphere of comet 67P

Background

The Earth's magnetic field varies over a wide range of timescales. The longer-term variations, typically occurring over decades to millennia, are predominantly the result of dynamo action in the Earth's core. Geomagnetic variations on timescales of seconds to years also occur, due to dynamic processes in the ionosphere, magnetosphere and heliosphere. These changes are ultimately tied to variations associated with the solar activity (or sunspot) cycle and are manifestations of space weather.

The fact that the geomagnetic field does respond to solar conditions can be useful, for example in investigating Earth structure using magnetotellurics, but it also creates a hazard. This geomagnetic hazard is primarily a risk to technology under the Earth's protective atmospheric blanket.[1]

LINK

 

[Sol88]

And again, SPECIFICALLY, what is missing from the sublimation FACT (NOT THEORY)? Specify, and I'll link to the data that shows it.
And what plasma data have been released that cannot/ have not been shown to be in line with expectations, and need EU nonsense to explain them?

As I've said lots of times, after 14 months at this comet, the evidence for this comet being as the "mainstream" have known for decades is overwhelming. On the other hand, the EU nonsense is still just an evidence-free delusion. Not a single piece of evidence. Nothing. It died at Tempel 1. A couple of cranksters are keeping it going, probably for financial reasons, and the fact that their acolytes are scientifically illiterate and/ or ignorant of real science.

Bovine excrement!!!!!


more problems than answers where raised with the deep impact dust up!!

and you know it Jonesdavid116

How much WATER ICE to dust ratio and was it the amount PREDICTED by mainsteam???

NO, THE AMOUNT OF DUST WAS THE SURPRISE!

F
SNIPED Most of the unruley .pdf


less
processed
than
cometary
dust
we
normally
see.
The
dust
to
gas
ratio
9
in
the
ejecta
was
larger than
what
was
measured
before
impact,
suggesting
that
the
volatile content
of
the
nucleus's
material
is
depleted even
several
meters
below
the
surface

HATE UNFORMATED .pdf's

but the the above quote is from the summery of the below link.

LINK

i.e WE (The mainstream sublimating dirty snowball mob) PREDICTED that there would be more ICE than DUST, we where surprised (wrong) so the ice must be deeper down, several meters in fact!

How does the suns thermal energy get several meters below a well insulated fluffy (AND HARD (MUPUS)) layer to the pristine ICE's below, to release the energy in a well collimated high energy JET???

IANW16, care to have a crack?

The lurkers are more than interested

 

[Sol88]

So the comet seems to more about PLASMA interactions than the unobserved sublimating ices!

Just as a curious question to you Joendavid116 how do you visualise the ice inside 67P, keeping in mind the absolute zoo of molecules and elements we see in the spectra?

Lets start with CARBON shall we?

 

[tusenfem]

The Philae probe was a failure due to expectations of what a comet is thought to be!!!

You could not be more wrong, because the instruments that I listed all worked and brought results. There is nothing to "expect", the instruments just measure either by sending X-rays and measuring reflection or by gas-spectrometry of the sublimating substances (ices).

This brave little probe could of killed this thread dead but it failed smashing into the nucleus and bouncing uncontrolled across the comet.

This sentence does not make any sense, but I guess you know that.

 

[tusenfem]

Ummm.... it does induce an opposite charge from the comets ionosphere does it not?

No, BIG FAIL!!

 

[tusenfem]

LINK

There is so much inapplicable in that, it's not even funny anymore.
Care to tell us what in space this "insulator" is that is supposed to "break down" to give your "discharge"?

got any inside non gagged news Tusenfem???

In_situ investigations of the ionosphere of comet 67P

Well, I tweeted all Rosetta RPC presentations for the upcoming AGU fall meeting, papers are in the work, on the magnetic cavity, on the far excursion, etc. You will see them in due course.

LINK

Old news, been known since the Carrington event, well maybe a wee bit later, but definitely since Birkeland. So, what does this have to do with comets?

 

[tusenfem]

but the the above quote is from the summery of the below link.

LINK

i.e WE (The mainstream sublimating dirty snowball mob) PREDICTED that there would be more ICE than DUST, we where surprised (wrong) so the ice must be deeper down, several meters in fact!

Guess your reading skills are not up to date. The paper states:

"The dust to gas ratio in the ejecta was larger than what was measured before impact, suggesting that the volatile content of the nucleus's material is depleted even several meters below the surface."

Where does it say (and copy-paste of the pfd is no problem at all, actually) in this part that there would be more ICE than DUST? That is something you are interpreting that they are saying, but it is not in your quote. But then maybe you don't know what "ratio" means?

How does the suns thermal energy get several meters below a well insulated fluffy (AND HARD (MUPUS)) layer to the pristine ICE's below, to release the energy in a well collimated high energy JET???

Ah yes, the wonders of thermodynamics.

 

[jonesdave116]

Bovine excrement!!!!!


more problems than answers where raised with the deep impact dust up!!

and you know it Jonesdavid116

How much WATER ICE to dust ratio and was it the amount PREDICTED by mainsteam???

NO, THE AMOUNT OF DUST WAS THE SURPRISE!

HATE UNFORMATED .pdf's

but the the above quote is from the summery of the below link.

LINK

i.e WE (The mainstream sublimating dirty snowball mob) PREDICTED that there would be more ICE than DUST, we where surprised (wrong) so the ice must be deeper down, several meters in fact!

How does the suns thermal energy get several meters below a well insulated fluffy (AND HARD (MUPUS)) layer to the pristine ICE's below, to release the energy in a well collimated high energy JET???

IANW16, care to have a crack?

The lurkers are more than interested

What cr*p are you on about now? Which part of they detected ice grains in the ejecta from the impact don't you understand? Which part of they detected the same ice grains in the coma of Hartley 2 don't you understand?
This is ICE. Solid ICE. Understand? It shouldn't be there if a comet is made of rock. If the jets are electric discharges, then how the hell does water ice survive in the jets at Hartley 2?
Yes, there was more dust than they were expecting. Funnily enough, we'd never sampled the surface of a comet before! It doesn't alter the fact the a shed load of H2O also came out, both vapour and solid. Unambiguously. Where did it come from? How do you turn rock into ice?
This idiotic nonsense died years ago. It is kept alive by a bunch of scientifically illiterate morons and their followers. It is a total irrelevance.

 

[jonesdave116]

How much WATER ICE to dust ratio and was it the amount PREDICTED by mainsteam???

How much H2O vapour and H2O ice grains did the idiot Thornhill predict would come out? How big did he predict the crater would be in solid rock? What density did he predict the comet to be? Or any other comet for that matter?

You are following the inane beliefs of an eejit who hasn't got one single thing right about comets. Ever. And still has absolutely zero evidence.

Like I said, it's rubbish, give it up, move on to something else more believable. Unicorns or astrology, or something.

 

[Dancing David]

The lurkers know what the answer will be: blather, rinse , repeat.

No evidence, just wishful thinking.

 

[jonesdave116]

more problems than answers where raised with the deep impact dust up!!

and you know it Jonesdavid116

No, I don't know it. Spell it out. What is the problem with the DI results? Specifically. They expected H2O. They found it. They expected dust. They found it. They expected other gases. They found them.
They didn't expect it to be rock. It wasn't.

 

[ferd burfle]

more problems than answers where raised with the deep impact dust up!!

and you know it Jonesdavid116

How much WATER ICE to dust ratio and was it the amount PREDICTED by mainsteam???

NO, THE AMOUNT OF DUST WAS THE SURPRISE!

Sol, you have no model of your own and therefore no predictions. Nothing left but try to mischaracterize mainstream findings and pretend that that is evidence favoring the EU.

Always with the false dichotomy; The Eternal Fallacy of the Scienceless Mind.