The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
The latest image from 67P resulted in A Tour of 67P...
Of course the EC proponents will obsess about the word rock used a lot in the text :p. They will ignore the fact that there are no electrical discharges seen from the peaks, spires and cliffs in the image.

Great pics, pity they look like they were taken with a 320x240 webcam!!! :boggled:

but

http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/images/9-small-bodies/2014/20140919_11.jpg looks like a bunny overexposed rocks, kinda like the deep impact bunnys overexposed rocks!!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/images/DeepImpactPIN.jpg

looks like a bunny :cool:
 
Last edited:
The usual ignorance of astronomy exposed with your "I see bunnies in the clouds" fantasy, Sol88 :p.

Still ignorant of basic arithmetic I see, Sol88, since you cannot answer Open question for you, Sol88 (18th September 2014): is 0.1 less than 3.0? after 6 days :eek:!

We still dragg'n this 'ol chestnut out again are we, Reality Check? I beleive I had alrady said i was wrong. I had confused kg/m3 and g/cm3 sorry mate :confused: And i believe 0.1 is a smaller portion of 3.0, so there you go we should be squared away now.

We can see "jets" why can we not see the 'nozzle"?
No, you are wrong there, if we see the collimated jets come from the surface, then it comes from under the surface, there is no other way.

And the coma was sposed to be surrounded by sublimating "ice", you know from all the surface ice laying around.

and this little nugget from NASA
The excavation of a crater on Tempel 1 was the trigger that allowed the proposal for the Stardust NExT mission to succeed. In addition to searching for the crater formed by Deep Impact, a key goal of that Stardust-NExT mission was to measure changes in the surface of the comet over an orbital period. This second set of measurements of Tempel 1 surface features showed that much of the evolution was in discrete, large areas, i.e., there was not a small, uniform erosion of the all parts of the surface, but rather large changes in a few places. Thus, comets evolve in a manner anaologous to erosion - most erosion takes place in discrete events (floods that make large, local changes) rather than as a slow, continuous process.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-286 what??? floods of what?

most of those changes were exactly where the overexposed "bright' patches were. Mmmmm.........

Mainstream choked on that one, as well as...
For many years we have known that a handful of comets (fewer than 10 percent) produced more water vapor than should be possible by sublimation of nucleus of water ice, in which the sizes of the nuclei are known. The flyby of comet Hartley 2 showed a large number of icy grains in the coma are driven out of the nucleus by the outgassing of carbon dioxide. These icy grains are plausibly the source of much of the water coming from the comet.

So therefore all -OH must come form water on/in the nucleus! now we just need to find it ay?

and just for a laugh
Studies of imagery showed that that the luminous flash created within a fraction of a second after Deep Impact's impactor was atomized by comet Tempel 1 was much fainter than expected. Comparison with experimental impacts at the Vertical Gun Range at NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., showed that such a faint flash was consistent only with a surface layer (depth a few times the diameter of the impactor) that was more than 75 percent empty space. This surprisingly high porosity was in contrast with theories that predicted comets were armored with a stronger, solid crust that impeded outgassing.

So comets are still fluffy dirty balls of ice :blush:

and BTW NO mention of the predicted double flash
Tempel 1 has a low-eccentricity orbit. Therefore its charge imbalance with respect to its environment at perihelion is low. (It is a “low-voltage” comet.) Electrical interactions with Deep Impact may be slight, but they should be measurable if NASA will look for them. They would likely be similar to those of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 prior to striking Jupiter’s atmosphere: The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact.
Thunderbolts link
 
Last edited:
We still dragg'n this 'ol chestnut out again are we, Reality Check?
...more ranting about EC delusion snipped...
You do not understand, Sol88:
The question is about the idiocy of thinking that an object that has a density much lower than that of a rock is a rock. Thus my question: Open question for you, Sol88 (18th September 2014): is 0.1 less than 3.0?
If your answer is yes then you acknowledge that the electric comet idea is obviously wrong. We should not see any more posts supporting it from you.
If your answer is no then you should have no problem explaining why simple arithmetic fails with comets :p.

The question Open question for you, Sol88 (18th September 2014): is 0.1 less than 3.0? has never been answered by you (if I am wrong please supply a link).

I will point out a few things to you Sol88
* Statements of ignorance about comets does not mean that the EC delusion is correct.
* Thinking that the science about comets is wrong does not make the EC delusion correct.
* Even magically showing that the science about comets is wrong will not make the EC delusion correct :jaw-dropp!
That is the thing about an idea so wrong that it passes into the realm of delusion - it remains wrong.
 
BTW: The idiocy of citing a lying web page, Sol88 :p!
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
And in case you are incapable of clicking on links, Sol88 (this is quite possible for someone gullible enough to fall for the Thunderbolt fantasies :p!)
From 15th November 2010, ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes
Sol88 has brought up the crank ThunderBolts web site again and the list of EC "predictions". I mentioned a couple of these in The totally stupid electric comet idea that has been debunked!
So let's look at some of these predictions individually and in detail to show just how incompetent the authors of the EC idea are. That way I can reduce the above post in size as Sol88 is insisting in supplying even more material to debunk the EC idea.

All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page.

Ignorance and lying about the impact flashes
Thunderbolt prediction:
...
The ignorance is obvious: Electrical discharges (like lightning) require a dielectric (insulating) medium to break down to form a conduction path for the discharge between the surfaces with a voltage difference. But comets are surrounded by plasma. Plasma is a conducting medium (about as conducting as a metal in general). Thus no electrical discharges are possible.

So the prediction is physically impossible.

N.B. The prediction does not state that there will be a flash on or after impact. However this is what was expected.

The result was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus according to NASA.
See the papers cited in Tim Thompson's Deep Impact post.

ThunderBolts "confirmed" result:

They are lying because their prediction (a flash shortly before impact) failed. They do not state what was actually seen, i.e. a flash on or after impact.

You are still ignoring the science, Sol88:
Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)
 
Yes , Sol88, science actually exists :jaw-dropp!
NASA's Deep Impact Produced Deep Results is reporting science, not crank web site fantasies.

The press release states that there was a flash after the impact thus making Thunderbolts liars when they "confirmed" their prediction of a flash before the impact.
15th November 2010, ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes

NASA's Deep Impact Produced Deep Results
In addition to searching for the crater formed by Deep Impact, a key goal of that Stardust-NExT mission was to measure changes in the surface of the comet over an orbital period. This second set of measurements of Tempel 1 surface features showed that much of the evolution was in discrete, large areas, i.e., there was not a small, uniform erosion of the all parts of the surface, but rather large changes in a few places. Thus, comets evolve in a manner anaologous to erosion - most erosion takes place in discrete events (floods that make large, local changes) rather than as a slow, continuous process.
Obviously not floods of rock, Sol88 :rolleyes:!
Erosion here on Earth in the analogy ("anaologous to erosion") has actual floods of water.
ETA: "rather large changes in a few places" is consistent with jets from subliming gas eroding the surface.

Your are lying about "most of those changes were exactly where the overexposed "bright' patches were", Sol88 - there is no mention of this in the press release

NASA's Deep Impact Produced Deep Results
For many years we have known that a handful of comets (fewer than 10 percent) produced more water vapor than should be possible by sublimation of nucleus of water ice, in which the sizes of the nuclei are known. The flyby of comet Hartley 2 showed a large number of icy grains in the coma are driven out of the nucleus by the outgassing of carbon dioxide. These icy grains are plausibly the source of much of the water coming from the comet.
No surprise there.

NASA's Deep Impact Produced Deep Results
Studies of imagery showed that that the luminous flash created within a fraction of a second after Deep Impact's impactor was atomized by comet Tempel 1 was much fainter than expected. Comparison with experimental impacts at the Vertical Gun Range at NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., showed that such a faint flash was consistent only with a surface layer (depth a few times the diameter of the impactor) that was more than 75 percent empty space. This surprisingly high porosity was in contrast with theories that predicted comets were armored with a stronger, solid crust that impeded outgassing.
It would someone quite ignorant of English to think that that this means that comets are not "fluffy dirty balls of ice", Sol88.
This explicitly states that the impact showed that Tempel 1 was "fluffy"
* more than 75 percent empty space
* surprisingly high porosity
 
Last edited:
Your are lying about "most of those changes were exactly where the overexposed "bright' patches were", Sol88 - there is no mention of this in the press release

So what are the bright patches in your opinion, RC?

Are there any bright patches Rosetta has spotted?

So we are not back and forth over the same stopping grounds RC, lets come up with a list.

One list that are FACTS according to NASA and the ESA, the other that's still the standard list of EC PREDICTIONS.

THE FACTS (NASA,ESA)



1 Comets are in orbit around the Sun as are our planets.

2 Comets are composed of ices, dust and rocky debris carried from the early formation of the solar system about 4.5 billion years ago.

3 Comets are remnants from the cold, outer regions of the solar system. They are generally thought to come from two areas - the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt. Both of these are areas where materials left over from the formation of our solar system have condensed into icy objects. Both regions extend beyond the orbits of Neptune and Pluto but are still part of our solar system and much closer to us than the closest star.

4 Comet orbits are elliptical. It brings them close to the sun and takes them far away.

5 Short period comets orbit the Sun every 20 years or less. Long period comets orbit the Sun every 200 years or longer. Those comets with orbits in between are called Halley-type comets.

6 Comets have three parts: the nucleus, the coma and the tails. The nucleus is the solid center component made of ice, gas and rocky debris. The coma is the gas and dust atmosphere around the nucleus, which results when heat from the Sun warms the surface of the nucleus so that gas and dust spew forth in all directions and are driven from the comet's surface. The tails are formed when energy from the Sun turns the coma so that it flows around the nucleus and forms a fanned out tail behind it extending millions of miles through space.

7 We see a comet's coma and tail because sunlight reflects off the dust (in the coma and dust tail) and because the energy from the Sun excites some molecules so that they glow and form a bluish tail called an ion tail and a yellow one made of neutral sodium atoms.

8 Scientists have seen comets range in size from less than 1 km diameter to as much as 300 km, although the 300km (called Chiron) does not travel into the inner solar system.

9 We know a comet could impact Earth and that it is important to understand the nature of comets so we can design better methods to protect ourselves from them should one be on a collision path with Earth.

10 A comet nucleus has a dark, sometimes mottled surface but we don't know if it has an outer crust or if it is layered inside. We don't really know what comets are like beneath their surface and that's why we need a mission like Deep Impact.

Sourel

Electric Comet Predictions

1 Comets are rock ( Same as asteroids)

2 MISSING WATER

3 SHARP SURFACE RELIEF

4 BLACK SURFACES

5 ANOMALOUS X-RAYS

6 ANOMALOUS DISCHARGE

7 COLLIMATED AND FILAMENTARY JETS

8 JET ENERGIES AND VELOCITIES

Source

Just for a start
 
Electric Comet Predictions

1 Comets are rock ( Same as asteroids)
Well, that one fails immediately, as the density calculations Reality Check has presented you repeatedly confirm.

2 MISSING WATER
So where is the missing water, then? We're seeing OH- ions streaming from jets. Water is there. Just because it's not encrusted in surface ice does not make this prediction a "hit".

3 SHARP SURFACE RELIEF
As would be expected from just about any deep space body without an atmosphere...

4 BLACK SURFACES
Which could be anything, really. Why is this prediction supposed to be unique to EC?

5 ANOMALOUS X-RAYS
So where are they? There are no anomalies that I'm aware of that conflict with the mainstream theory.

6 ANOMALOUS DISCHARGE
See my response to 5.

7 COLLIMATED AND FILAMENTARY JETS
Why is this exclusive evidence for EC? Why can "mainstream theory" comets not have these?

8 JET ENERGIES AND VELOCITIES
So what are the exact numbers? How do those differ from the mainstream theory? Where's the Rosetta data that confirms this prediction?

Source

Just for a start

All this and I'm just a layperson. You guys need to try harder.
 
Sol88: 5 years now being unable to understand simple arithmetic: 0.6 is less then 3.0

So what are the bright patches in your opinion, RC?
They would be bright patches, Sol88 :jaw-dropp!
They are places where more light is reflected from the dark surface of comets then the rest of the surface. My guess is surface ice.

Good - you can quote NASA stating the science backed up by observations, Sol 88:
1 Comets are in orbit around the Sun as are our planets.

2 Comets are composed of ices, dust and rocky debris carried from the early formation of the solar system about 4.5 billion years ago.

3 Comets are remnants from the cold, outer regions of the solar system. They are generally thought to come from two areas - the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt. Both of these are areas where materials left over from the formation of our solar system have condensed into icy objects. Both regions extend beyond the orbits of Neptune and Pluto but are still part of our solar system and much closer to us than the closest star.

4 Comet orbits are elliptical. It brings them close to the sun and takes them far away.

5 Short period comets orbit the Sun every 20 years or less. Long period comets orbit the Sun every 200 years or longer. Those comets with orbits in between are called Halley-type comets.

6 Comets have three parts: the nucleus, the coma and the tails. The nucleus is the solid center component made of ice, gas and rocky debris. The coma is the gas and dust atmosphere around the nucleus, which results when heat from the Sun warms the surface of the nucleus so that gas and dust spew forth in all directions and are driven from the comet's surface. The tails are formed when energy from the Sun turns the coma so that it flows around the nucleus and forms a fanned out tail behind it extending millions of miles through space.

7 We see a comet's coma and tail because sunlight reflects off the dust (in the coma and dust tail) and because the energy from the Sun excites some molecules so that they glow and form a bluish tail called an ion tail and a yellow one made of neutral sodium atoms.

8 Scientists have seen comets range in size from less than 1 km diameter to as much as 300 km, although the 300km (called Chiron) does not travel into the inner solar system.

9 We know a comet could impact Earth and that it is important to understand the nature of comets so we can design better methods to protect ourselves from them should one be on a collision path with Earth.

10 A comet nucleus has a dark, sometimes mottled surface but we don't know if it has an outer crust or if it is layered inside. We don't really know what comets are like beneath their surface and that's why we need a mission like Deep Impact.

Sourel
But then you show that you cannot understand NASA or sceince by going onto the fantasy of the failed "Electric Comet Predictions" that Thunderbolts lie about:
ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes

And there are no predictions on that crank web page, Sol88 :jaw-dropp
"Comets are rock ( Same as asteroids)" is an idiotically ignorant assertion that has become a delusion given the evidence against it. Comets are measured to have different densities and compositions from rocks.
Sol88: You seem still unable to understand simple arithmetic: 01 is less then 3.0
Open question for you, Sol88 (18th September 2014): is 0.1 less than 3.0?

The rest is just fantasies based on more ignorance.

You are still in denial of the science, Sol88:
Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)
Which includes from 7th August 2009:Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).

5 years now, Sol88, and you are still exposing total gullibility by still falling for the Thunderbolts delusion that comets are rocks and still have a high degree of ignorance about real comets judging by your questions :p
 
Last edited:
Just for a start
More on this: Just for start, Sol88, you should not display ignorance about what a link is :p.
You cite "Predictions on “Deep Impact”"
You need to read: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
written in 2010 and apparently an inability to click on a link or maybe read has prevented you from understanding the lies, etc. in the "Predictions on “Deep Impact”".

That the Electric Comet idea is a delusion from the Thunderbolts authors is fully set out in that web page's description of the model, e.g. that comets are debris from "violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history—a phase that persisted into early human history". This is doubly deluded:
* There are no electrical interactions between planets and moons that will magically create comets.
* That this "persisted into early human history" obviously comes from the fantasies of the mythologists and catastrophists who follow Immanuel Velikovsky. Their team includes these:
David Talbott: "Comparative mythologist"
Michael Armstrong: "Long-time student of “catastrophism,” "
Dwardu Cardona: "catastrophist researcher"
Ev Cochrane: "comparative mythologist"​
There is a place for studying mythology in astronomy (e.g. ancient observations of nova) but ignoring basic facts about the universe to do so is ignorant to say the least.
 
5 years now, Sol88, and you are still exposing total gullibility by still falling for the Thunderbolts delusion that comets are rocks and still have a high degree of ignorance about real comets judging by your questions

Sorry, we disagree on this point. From my point of view it's your gullibility with the dirty snowball model or which ever one it's morphed into now.

You believe in ad hoc fariedust, fluffy bunny stories about creation more than anything the thunderbolts mob say. Starts with something from nothing and ends up with comets being the pristine left overs after everything settled down from the creation event.

If that's not story telling i all it's God fearing glory, don't what is. It's a nice story but that all it is, a story.

You know after all Wal Thornhill predicted the observed double flash!! On the one hand one predicted the double flash, on the other hand the others a made up story to explain away the predicted and observed double flash. Which left those story tellers to conclude that comets are less dense that water and 75% air!!!

You can stand there forever telling porkies with your hand on it before people just "wake up" and call it for what it is!
 
That the Electric Comet idea is a delusion from the Thunderbolts authors is fully set out in that web page's description of the model, e.g. that comets are debris from "violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history—a phase that persisted into early human history". This is doubly deluded:
* There are no electrical interactions between planets and moons that will magically create comets.
* That this "persisted into early human history" obviously comes from the fantasies of the mythologists and catastrophists who follow Immanuel Velikovsky. Their team includes these:

David Talbott: "Comparative mythologist"
Michael Armstrong: "Long-time student of “catastrophism,” "
Dwardu Cardona: "catastrophist researcher"
Ev Cochrane: "comparative mythologist"

There is a place for studying mythology in astronomy (e.g. ancient observations of nova) but ignoring basic facts about the universe to do so is ignorant to say the least.

Mmmm.... Even NASA entertains the idea of planet migration :eek:
 
e.g. that comets are debris from "violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history—a phase that persisted into early human history". This is doubly deluded:

This shows the highest disrespect for what our forebears are trying to tell us and complete ignorance on your part to except anything outside of your protected narrow little world view.
 
Sorry, we disagree on this point. ...fairy stories snipped..
Wrong. Sol88: A child would not disagree with the fact that 0.1 is less than 3.0. But you cannot answer the simple question: Open question for you, Sol88 (18th September 2014): is 0.1 less than 3.0?

You have been in denial of a basic fact about comets for 5 years now, Sol88, from 7th August 2009:Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).

You have been in denial of the science since from basically the beginning of the thread on 6th July 2009: Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)

You have now fallen to lying about Wal Thornhill's prediction which was a single flash before the impact, not two flashes after the impact: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.

One the other hand, we cannot expect someone who does not know that 0.1less than 3.0, to know the difference between 1 and 2 or between "before" and "after" :p!
 
Last edited:
Mmmm.... Even NASA entertains the idea of planet migration :eek:
Mmmm.... you cannot even understand the Electric Comet delusion as stated in that Thunderbolts web page, Sol88 :eye-poppi!
There is no planet migration in:
Reality Check;10240388That the Electric Comet idea is a delusion from the Thunderbolts authors is fully set out in that [URL="http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050704predictions.htm" said:
web page's description of the model[/URL], e.g. that comets are debris from "violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history—a phase that persisted into early human history". This is doubly deluded:
* There are no electrical interactions between planets and moons that will magically create comets.
* That this "persisted into early human history" obviously comes from the fantasies of the mythologists and catastrophists who follow Immanuel Velikovsky. Their team includes these:
David Talbott: "Comparative mythologist"
Michael Armstrong: "Long-time student of “catastrophism,” "
Dwardu Cardona: "catastrophist researcher"
Ev Cochrane: "comparative mythologist"​
There is a place for studying mythology in astronomy (e.g. ancient observations of nova) but ignoring basic facts about the universe to do so is ignorant to say the least.
There is the rather deluded idea from Velikovsky that planets bounce around the Solar System at his bidding to explain myths, including the manna from the skies and Jericho stories.
 
This shows the highest disrespect ...snipped insults....
This shows a total inability to understand the Thunderbolts comet delusion that have been partially based on the rather deluded Velikovsky idea.

I have the highest respect for the observational skills of our forebears. The Babylonians were IMO the best observers of the skies until modern times. Many astronomical events have been discovered and confirmed from ancient observations.

But there is a difference between observations that are backed up by science and spinning stories about myths as Thunderbolts do about comets.

And as for ignorance:
Where is your answer to Open question for you, Sol88 (18th September 2014): is 0.1 less than 3.0?
Why have you not been able to understand the science that debunks the EC idea: Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)
 
Last edited:
There is the rather deluded idea from Velikovsky that planets bounce around the Solar System at his bidding to explain myths, including the manna from the skies and Jericho stories.

From NASA:
The new model fits well with measurements by other astronomers of heavy water in Hartley 2, and with the newest dynamical studies of planetary migration.
Ummmm....That's got Velikovsky all over 'ol mate :D

impact05.png
The lack of features on the smooth region at left implies a young surface. But is it advancing toward the right and covering up rougher, older surface regions? Or is it retreating to the left, eroding and uncovering those regions? The scarp edge marked by arrows is about 10-20 m above the lower terrain.
Credit: NASA/UM/Cornell/Peter Thomas

What's it? I can not find a mainstream explanation of just what IT is! One has also predicted this phenomena the other....

And I guess by your explanation, ALL myths are separate and have no common origin, unlike one that incorporates myth into hard science that completes our story of a common past, oh well your loss :confused:
 
Last edited:
From NASA: Ummmm....That's got Velikovsky all over 'ol mate :D
Ummmm... still unable to tell the difference between science and delusions, Sol88 :D!

Planetary migration is a scientific theory. ETA: I had better address your ignorance, Sol88: Planetary migration
Planetary migration occurs when a planet or other stellar satellite interacts with a disk of gas or planetesimals, resulting in the alteration of the satellite's orbital parameters, especially its semi-major axis. Planetary migration is the most likely explanation for hot Jupiters, extrasolar planets with jovian masses, but orbits of only a few days. The generally accepted theory of planet formation from a protoplanetary disk predicts such planets cannot form so close to their stars, as there is insufficient mass at such small radii and the temperature is too high to allow the formation of rocky or icy planetesimals. It has also become clear that terrestrial-mass planets may be subject to rapid inward migration if they form while the gas disk is still present. This may affect the formation of the cores of the giant planets (which have masses of the order of 10 Earth masses), if those planets form via the core accretion mechanism.
Velikovsky's idea is a fantasy built on myths..
The electric comet idea is a delusion built on ignorance, "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic and Velikovsky's idea.

Your stated ignorance about an image is still nothing to do with the electric comet fantasy.

Open question for you, Sol88 (18th September 2014): is 0.1 less than 3.0?
Why have you not been able to understand the science that debunks the EC idea: Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)
 
Last edited:
There is no point in replying to Sol88's question about Tempel 1 since someone incapable of answering
Open question for you, Sol88 (18th September 2014): is 0.1 less than 3.0?
or understanding Electric comets still do not exist! (26th August 2013)
is unlikely to understand science about comets.

But this may be of interest to lurkers so:
Formation of smooth terrains on Comet Tempel 1
We suggest that the regions of smooth terrain which were observed on Comet 9P/Tempel 1 by the Deep Impact spacecraft were formed by blowing ice grains in an outburst of gas from the comet interior. When gas is released from 10 to 20 m deep layers which were heated to 135 K, it is released quiescently onto the surface by individual conduits. If large amounts of gas are released, the drainage system cannot release them fast enough and wider interconnected channels are formed, leading to sudden outburst of gas. Instability triggering a sudden shift of flow is well known in subglacial drainage of water. The ballistic trajectory of the ice particles reach a distance of 3 km in the atmosphereless comet, whose gravity is 0.034 cm s -1, if ejected at an angle of 45° at a speed of 95 cm s -1. This speed is close to the speeds measured in laboratory experiments: 167, 140×sini and 167 cm s -1, for particles of 0.3, 1000 and 14-650 mum, respectively. Blowing of ice grains can overcome the 1650 m long horizontal section of smooth terrain i1 (Fig. 1), whereas simple flow of material downhill would stop close to the foot of the hill. The ice particles at the end of their trajectory have a horizontal velocity component and this low velocity ballistic sedimentation would lead to formation of lineaments on the smooth terrain, like in solid-particulate volcanic eruptions.

Layering and Smooth Flows: What Comet Nuclei are Really Like
On July 4, 2005, Deep Impact obtained the highest resolution views of a comet nucleus to date. Some 30% of the surface of Tempel 1 was imaged at better than 10 m/pxl. These data revealed several unexpected features including pervasive layering and smooth areas with flow-like characteristics. Several distinct layers ranging from 10 to 200 meters in thickness and of significant lateral extent can be identified. It is likely that some of these layers extend deep into the body of the comet. At least two areas of remarkably smooth terrain are present. The better imaged is an elongated flow-like tongue about 3 km wide, 1 km long and 200 meters thick which displays many characteristics of a down-hill flow emanating from a possible source area only a few hundred meters wide. The detailed characteristics of the layering and smooth areas will be summarized and possible formation models presented. Suggestions of nucleus layering exist in earlier, lower resolution images of both Borrelly and Wild 2. Optimistic viewers may even see suggestions of smooth flows in Deep Space 1 images of Borrelly

Fluidization and multiphase transport of particulate cometary material as an explanation of the smooth terrains and repetitive outbursts on 9P/Tempel 1

A more general paper: The nucleus of Comet 9P/Tempel 1: Shape and geology from two flybys

And more than Tempel 1: Comet nuclei: Morphology and implied processes of surface modification
 
Last edited:
Ummmm... still unable to tell the difference between science and delusions, Sol88 !

Planetary migration is a scientific theory. ETA: I had better address your ignorance, Sol88: Planetary migration

Ha ha ha :D wasn't before! but now has to be to save planetary formation theory!!! talk about your standard circular argument :)

PLANETS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO MIGRATE AT ALL :)

but if they did, it would explain a lot of mysteries!

No wonder I'm confused trying to follow your logic RC :(

By the way what do you think the bright spots on the posted photo are?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom