The Electric Comet Theory Part IV/SAFIRE

[Sol88]

Subsurface properties and early activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Gulkis, S. et al.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6220/aaa0709



Tensile strength of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko nucleus material from overhangs
Attree, N. et al.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2018/03/aa32155-17.pdf



Gravitational slopes, geomorphology, and material strengths of the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko from OSIRIS observations.
Groussin, O. et al.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2015/11/aa26379-15/aa26379-15.html

See Table 1.

Constraints on cometary surface evolution derived from a statistical analysis of 67P’s topography
Vincent, J.-B. et al.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/Suppl_2/S329/3930861



Thermal inertia and roughness of the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko from MIRO and VIRTIS observations.
Marshall, D. et al.
https://boris.unibe.ch/118280/1/aa33104-18.pdf



Thermal and mechanical properties of the near-surface layers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
Spohn, T. et al.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...berg/642a99cd4f5036b2235a9a84635a1c445e3b00e3



Structure and elastic parameters of the near surface of Abydos site on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, as obtained by SESAME/CASSE listening to the MUPUS insertion phase.

Look at the strengths measured, and then refer back to the post by The Man, here;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12171304&postcount=1448

Properties of the 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko interior revealed by CONSERT radar
Kofman, W. et al.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/2/aab0639

Note the permittivity value of 1.27. Also note that the permittivity of vacuum is 1. And then refer to this;

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/relative-permittivity-d_1660.html

And this;2

And this;

https://gpg.geosci.xyz/content/phys...ity_minerals.html#table-permittivity-minerals

And this;

https://gpg.geosci.xyz/content/phys...ttivity_frozen.html#table-permittivity-frozen


The Deep Impact crater on 9P/Tempel-1 from Stardust-NExT
Schultz, P. H. et al.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019103512002473




Then go and look for an online crater calculator, and see how big the crater would be in rock, for an object of ~ 370 kg, and an impact speed of ~ 10 km/s.


In summary, there is not a single shred of evidence for rock, and an absolute shed load that says that it isn't. Therefore, anybody who is suggesting it is rock is either lying, scientifically illiterate, or brainwashed by neo-Velikoskian con artists. Or a combination of all three.

Great compilation jd116!

Now, i’m just happy that we can all call the CONSOLIDATED material ROCK, not ACTUAL ROCK mind you, as Reality Check states (We have a mixture of ices and dust with high porosity in a low gravity environment. That mixture does not exist n Earth. We want a name for it. So we use terms like rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc. keeping in mind that that they are not actual rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc.) but just kinda rocky looking, so we’ll call it rock even when we ALL know it’s not actual rock.

But there is an electric field centred on a cometary nucleus.

Is this electric field strong enough to lift dust odd in jets jd116?

 

[Reality Check]

Confirm that you are stating that you agree that comets are not made of ACTUAL ROCK

​

Now, i’m just happy that we can all call the CONSOLIDATED material ROCK, not ACTUAL ROCK mind you, as Reality Check states

Please confirm that you are stating that you agree that comets are not made of ACTUAL ROCK.

Otherwise we are back to yet more detailing from your electric comets insanity.

 

[Reality Check]

Repeats his "electric field centred on a cometary nucleus" lie from yesterday

But there is an electric field centred on a cometary nucleus.

Is this electric field strong enough to lift dust odd in jets jd116?

18 October 2018: Repeats his "electric field centred on a cometary nucleus" lie from yesterday when there is no evidence of such a field.

18 October 2018: Stupidity that jets are dust lifted by his imaginary electric field centered in the nucleus.
Jets are gas, ice and dust grains. Jets are created by sublimating ices whose gas lifts ice and dust grains from the surface. Jets are jets generally because they are shaped by surface features such as pits (we have images of jets issuing from pits!) and have traced them back to fissured cliffs.

Jets are comets with high activity while a comet is close to the Sun with a coma. There are no surface electrostatic fields because the surface is shielded from the solar wind.

17 October 2018: A "electric field centred on the rocky nucleus" lie and usual derail form his electric comet inanity

There is no evidence of an electric field centered on any comet nucleus. There are the measured electric fields inside comet coma generally from the interaction of the solar wind with the gas from sublimating ices on the nucleus. There is proposed electrostatic electric fields over the surface of comes comets only at low activity far from the Sun. These shift dust and ice grains across the surface and lift them above the surface.

 

[Sol88]

​

Please confirm that you are stating that you agree that comets are not made of ACTUAL ROCK.

Otherwise we are back to yet more detailing from your electric comets insanity.

Sure, what else would you call it?? coco pops?

So we call it rock.

 

[Sol88]

18 October 2018: Repeats his "electric field centred on a cometary nucleus" lie from yesterday when there is no evidence of such a field.

18 October 2018: Stupidity that jets are dust lifted by his imaginary electric field centered in the nucleus.
Jets are gas, ice and dust grains. Jets are created by sublimating ices whose gas lifts ice and dust grains from the surface. Jets are jets generally because they are shaped by surface features such as pits (we have images of jets issuing from pits!) and have traced them back to fissured cliffs.

Jets are comets with high activity while a comet is close to the Sun with a coma. There are no surface electrostatic fields because the surface is shielded from the solar wind.

17 October 2018: A "electric field centred on the rocky nucleus" lie and usual derail form his electric comet inanity

for real?

 

[steenkh]

Now, i’m just happy that we can all call the CONSOLIDATED material ROCK, not ACTUAL ROCK mind you, as Reality Check states ([URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?"[/url])

A few days ago I asked you if you still claim that comets are made of rock, and you said 'yes'. Now you are saying it is not actual rock, but you just choose to call it rock. These are mixed signals indeed.

So, are you still claiming that comets are made of actual rock, or have you modified your claim to be that comets are made of something else that you choose to call rock?

 

[Sol88]

Nah, yeah you’ve confabulated it stinky!

What I said is comets are rock but not really knowing the Rosetta mob didn’t have a name for a mixture of ices and dust. So reality check said we, the Royal we, call it rock for WANT of a better term.

So we call comets rock but not actual fair dinkum bona fide true blue rock but a highly porous mixture of ices and dust with a soft fluffy outer layer, a hard crunchy shell and the reminder of said ice and dust mix.

Some said this mix contained MOSTLY ice but data appears to say MOSTLY dust.

So just for ease of conversation we’ll all call it rock as but not actual rock. It’s seems it was just an unfortunate use of the the term that our understanding of cometary nuclei is evolving mostly toward ROCK along with this CONSOLIDATED MATERIAL or BEDROCK and FRACTURED LAYERED TERRAIN. So you see rock is just easier to write 4 letters.

But we don’t mean actual rock, bedrock, consolidated material with fractured and layered terrain.

Now steenkth, are you aware of the electric field centred on the rocky nucleus?

 

[steenkh]

Nah, yeah you’ve confabulated it stinky!

What I said is comets are rock but not really knowing the Rosetta mob didn’t have a name for a mixture of ices and dust. So reality check said we, the Royal we, call it rock for WANT of a better term.

So we call comets rock but not actual fair dinkum bona fide true blue rock but a highly porous mixture of ices and dust with a soft fluffy outer layer, a hard crunchy shell and the reminder of said ice and dust mix.

Some said this mix contained MOSTLY ice but data appears to say MOSTLY dust.

So just for ease of conversation we’ll all call it rock as but not actual rock. It’s seems it was just an unfortunate use of the the term that our understanding of cometary nuclei is evolving mostly toward ROCK along with this CONSOLIDATED MATERIAL or BEDROCK and FRACTURED LAYERED TERRAIN. So you see rock is just easier to write 4 letters.

But we don’t mean actual rock, bedrock, consolidated material with fractured and layered terrain.

Until now you certainly never said that by rock you meant anything else than actual rock, so I take answer to mean that you now think that comets are not made of actual rock, but something else that you have not defined closely, but which I suspect will be crystallized into something that fits with the actual measurements.

Now steenkth, are you aware of the electric field centred on the rocky nucleus?

I am a complete lay person in this debate, but I believe that this has been measured, and it is nowhere close to what you needed for actual rock. What do you need for a mixture of dust and ice?

 

[jonesdave116]

Now, i’m just happy that we can all call the CONSOLIDATED material ROCK, not ACTUAL ROCK

And one of the main tenets of Thornhill's EC woo is that it is actual rock, blasted off of a planet. So you are conceding that to be trivially wrong. Correct?

 

[Sol88]

And one of the main tenets of Thornhill's EC woo is that it is actual rock, blasted off of a planet. So you are conceding that to be trivially wrong. Correct?

No, I concede comets are rocks discharging in the solar plasma, though not actual rock.

 

[Reality Check]

What I said is comets are rock but not really knowing the Rosetta mob didn’t have a name for a mixture of ices and dust. So reality check said we, the Royal we, call it rock for WANT of a better term.

That is not really what I wrote in 16 October 2018: Stupidity that A’Hearn using standard terms is "unfortunate words".

The royal we is every rational person in the world who knows that comets are ices and dust. When these rational people read words such as rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc. in scientific papers about comets they know that the astronomers are writing about the ices and dust that comets formed from in the early solar system. The astronomers use those words borrowed from terrestrial geology rather than making up more terms for trivial aspects of comets.

 

[Reality Check]

Throws away a central tenet of the electric comets insanity

No, I concede comets are rocks discharging in the solar plasma, though not actual rock.

23 October 2018: Throws away a central dogma of the electric comets insanity but keeps his "discharging in the solar plasma" insanity.

Now that you concede that comets are mad of ices and dust ("rock"):
When did comets form from ices and dust, Sol88?
Where did comets form from ices and dust, Sol88?
What happens to the ices as comets get closer to the Sun, Sol88? (hint: what is sublimation?).

Sol88's electric comet insanity (maybe the rock and being blasted from planets insanity will be crossed out soon but do not hold your breath!)
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity.
A repeated insane insult of Michael A’Hearn.

 

[jonesdave116]

No, I concede comets are rocks discharging in the solar plasma, though not actual rock.

Which is sheer idiocy, as there is no rock, as proven, and there are no discharges, as proven. So, it's a busted flush that relies on religious zeal and faith only. Correct?

 

[Sol88]

Not actual rock, jd116.

It's just the word astronomers use to describe the mixture of MOSTLY dust with SOME ice's.

and

at 80 odd percent the comet nucleus is actually MOSTLY empty voids.

So, for want of a better word and thanks to Reality Check we can now use the word ROCK.

but we understand not actual ROCK but some majical mixture of NOTHING, DUST with some ice.

Abstract
From the operation of the MUPUS thermal probe Spohn et al. (2015) concluded that the material of the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko is likely to have a high strength, at least locally at the Philae landing site. In this work we consider the derived strength of the material in order to constrain its granulation. For this purpose we performed numerical simulations of the long–term sintering of ice–dust granular mixtures of different granulation, covered by a dust mantle. The dust mantle has a thickness of 0 – 16 cm, and a (pore size and temperature–dependent) thermal conductivity. According to our simulations a hardened layer at least a meter thick forms beneath the dust only when the grains are tens of microns in radius, or smaller.

In order to better simulate the topography at the Philae landing site, we simulated the evolution of the material when the solar flux is reduced by
25%. In both cases, also when the illumination was deliberately overestimated, our simulations indicate that the coarse–grained material should not undergo significant sintering. However, the failed attempt to penetrate the subsurface later by MUPUS-PEN probably indicates high strength

Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko:
hardening of the sub-surface layer

(c) What are comets made of?
At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4]. Nevertheless, there is still considerable uncertainty about even this basic parameter, not least of which is that most measurements are subject to selection effects in removing refractories from the nucleus to the coma, where they are observed as dust.

Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn

The mechanical properties of the surface in a number of different regions were constrained by comparing gravitational slopes and surface morphology [47],
where low slope (0-20°) terrains contained mainly fine material and few large isolated boulders (> 10 m), intermediate slope terrains (20°-45°) associated with fallen consolidated material, debris fields with numerous
intermediate size boulders (< 1m – 10m) and high-slope terrain (45-90°) being cliff regions with exposed consolidated material with no boulders or fine material. Here consolidated is used to refer to areas that appear
rocky in appearance and are cohesive enough to display lineaments and fractures.

The Rosetta mission orbiter Science overview – the comet phase M.G.G.T. Taylor (1), N. Altobelli (2), B. J. Buratti (3) and M. Choukroun



but not actual rock.

 

[Sol88]

Now are we happy?

 

[Sol88]

So now back to the ambipolar electric field and the separation of charges caused by the motion of the solar plasma stream past the ...ROCKY nucleus.

Can this be the cause of cometary jets?

anyone with a half a brain cell would have to wonder what else these electric fields can do.

 

[Reality Check]

Back to the usual delusions e.g. a "ROCKY nucleus"

So now back to the ambipolar electric field and the separation of charges caused by the motion of the solar plasma stream past the ...ROCKY nucleus.

25 October 2018: Back to the usual delusions e.g. a "ROCKY nucleus"

It is "rocky" (lowercase) since he concedes that comets are ices and dust bodies that formed in the early Solar System .6 billion years ago. That is what the mainstream use of the word rock means.

the ambipolar electric field is standard plasma physics. A comet coma is plasma. A comet coma will have a ambipolar electric field. That ambipolar electric field is in the coma, not on the comet nucleus !

The solar wind is plasma and thus contains separated charges.

Anyone with half a brain would read the posts in this thread, the ices and dust comet papers that they have cited and what the ambipolar electric field is.

 

[Reality Check]

"majical mixture of NOTHING, DUST with some ice" stupidity

but we understand not actual ROCK but some majical mixture of NOTHING, DUST with some ice.

You cannot use the word "ROCK" (uppercase) because that suggests your electric comet insanity. You can use the standard, sane "rock" (lowercase) = ices and dust comets that formed in the early Solar System.

25 October 2018: "majical mixture of NOTHING, DUST with some ice" stupidity when it is cometary physics.
Obviously he has never seen snow which is a mixture of NOTHING and ICES and a bit of DUST !

Very simply put: Start with a grain of ice in space. Have another grain of ice collide with it. If they stick they will make a dumbbell shape. Collide another grain and it will stick fairly randomly on that shape. We end up with an irregular shape full of voids. Mix in dust grains and voids still happen.

 

[tusenfem]

Not actual rock

Okay that is settled, then.

 

[Sol88]

^^^

Oh, I thought you already knew?? Oh, and also You cannot use the word "ROCK" (uppercase)