The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haig said:
Then Tom there is this to consider ...
Click to expand...
the usual rant about peoples delusions about comets (and the Sun) from Haig :jaw-dropp!

There is a lie about the "Sun is entering a Grand Solar Minimum". The Sun may be entering a "mini-Maunder event".

The ignorance from you, Haig, is actually growing :p!
The fact that the Sun is powered by fusion has nothing to do with sunspots.
 
The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos

Haig said:
Your European Space Agency is right into youtube Ambition the film
Click to expand...
Of course the ESA supports good science presentations :eye-poppi!
They are not ignorant about science.
They are not deluded about science.
They do not lie to their readers.

Haig, any one (except you and Sol88. What about you paladin17?) who reads their web site or watches the videos can see how ignorant and deluded these web pages and videos are.

Sol88: List of outstanding questions
Haig: List of outstanding questions

Electric comets still do not exist :eek:!
 
Rosetta keeps on providing impressive images of 67P: CometWatch – 10 December
This four-image mosaic comprises images taken from a distance of 20.1 km from the centre of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko on 10 December. The image resolution is 1.71 m/pixel and the individual 1024 x 1024 frames measure 1.75 km across. The mosaic is slightly cropped and measures 2.9 x 2.6 km.
Click to expand...
 
@ Jean Tate
In summary, I think there is a huge range of things we could discuss, on the ech. As you seem so taken with it, why don't you take the lead on such a discussion?
Click to expand...

Ok, will you, Jean Tate, engage with me on the location of the "jets"?

Anywhoo lets have a crack at it ay!

Firstly mainstreams explanation:

Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers
Abstract
Observations of the inner coma of Comet 19P/Borrelly with the camera on the Deep Space 1 spacecraft revealed several highly collimated
dust jets emanating from the nucleus. The observed jets can be produced by acceleration of evolved gas from a subsurface cavity through
a narrow orifice to the surface. As long as the cavity is larger than the orifice, the pressure in the cavity will be greater than the ambient
pressure in the coma and the flow from the geyser will be supersonic. The gas flow becomes collimated as the sound speed is approached and
dust entrainment in the gas flow creates the observed jets. Outside the cavity, the expanding gas loses its collimated character, but the density
drops rapidly decoupling the dust and gas, allowing the dust to continue in a collimated beam. The hypothesis proposed here can explain the
jets seen in the inner coma of Comet 1P/Halley as well, and may be a primary mechanism for cometary activity.

2003 Published by Elsevier Inc
Click to expand...

So YOU need subsurface cavities and a narrow orifice. This is the ONLY mechanism available to standard mainstream understanding of jet production on a comet.

Now when we have a look with the OSIRIS camera aboard Rosetta we only see a smooth dust covered plain with a few boulders strewn across. We have not yet seen any kind of orifice. in fact the jets only seem visible when 67P rotates and they become visible on the limb.

BUT when traced to their source we see ONLY A DUST COVERED PLAIN.

JEAN TATE, where are the orifices for YOUR jet production?


Because 67P is becoming more active, jets are also starting to emanate from ALL over the comet
Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is beginning to show a clearly visible increase in activity. While in the past months most of the dust emitted from the body’s surface seemed to originate from the neck region, which connects the two lobes, images obtained by Rosetta’s scientific imaging system OSIRIS now show jets of dust along almost the whole extent of the comet
Click to expand...
further
“At this point, we believe that a large fraction of the illuminated comet’s surface is displaying some level of activity,” said Jean-Baptiste Vincent from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) in Germany
Click to expand...

and just to make the point non negotiable
Since under normal circumstances the comet’s nucleus would outshine the jets, the necessary images must be drastically overexposed. “In addition, one image alone cannot tell us the whole story,” said Sierks. “From one image, we cannot discern exactly where on the surface a jet arises.” Instead, the researchers compare images of the same region taken from different angles in order to reconstruct the 3-D structure of the jets.
Click to expand...
LINK

Have a go at that for starters Jean Tate, just to keep the discussion focused on the Electric Comet Theory.

I believe AGU are having a streamed presentation today about the finding from OSIRIS
 
Sol88: Where are the images of electrical discharges on 67P

Sol88 said:
@ Jean Tate ...
Click to expand...
I will reply to address some ignorance in that post, Sol88.
Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers is the explanation for "several highly collimated dust jets emanating from the nucleus" on Comet 19P/Borrelly. This is a subset of comet jets that are highly collimated
The jets on 67P are fan shaped (not "highly collimated").

The jets on 67P are visible on the limb because they are outlined against the dark background (space is kind of black!).

Because the comet is heating up we have seen the spread of jets from inside the neck (contrary to what the electric comet would predict) to the lobes. OSIRIS images of Rosetta's comet show jets of activity By Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany | Published: Friday, October 24, 2014
While in the past months most of the dust emitted from the body’s surface seemed to originate from the neck region, which connects the two lobes, images obtained by Rosetta’s scientific imaging system OSIRIS now show jets of dust along almost the whole extent of the comet.
Click to expand...

You need to read what you cite, Sol88:
Since under normal circumstances the comet’s nucleus would outshine the jets, the necessary images must be drastically overexposed. “In addition, one image alone cannot tell us the whole story,” said Sierks. “From one image, we cannot discern exactly where on the surface a jet arises.” Instead, the researchers compare images of the same region taken from different angles in order to reconstruct the 3-D structure of the jets.
Click to expand...


And please do not lie, Sol88, nothing in your post is about "Electric Comet Theory" so the post is not trying to focus on it.
But since you want to focus on the "Electric Comet Theory": 17 December 2014 Sol88: Please point out in the OSIRIS images or other Rosetta images where the electrical discharges from high points predicted in the electric comet idea are.
 
Last edited:
Question Sol88: Where are the images of electrical discharges on 67P
Click to expand...

In the OSIRIS images, Reality Check.

Edited by LashL: 
Removed breach.


Oh...and where are the orifices, Reality Check...you know the one YOU need for YOUR idea of jet production???

We have seen to date no surfice ice, hard rocky like terrain and not orifices at the location of the jets...in fact
t high resolution, Borrelly’s main jet is resolved into a
series of smaller collimated jets (Fig. 1). Their details are
quite distinct; each has a cylindrical core 200–400 m ra-
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address:
yelle@lpl.arizona.edu (R.V. Yelle).
dius that is 4–6 km in length. Spacing between collimated
columns is typically
∼
1 km. Bright hemispheric-shaped
isophotes are visible at their bases (Fig. 1), particularly when
they are well resolved and their sources are near the limb.
Two of the collimated columns are traceable to sources that
appear as dark patches in or adjacent to the bright smooth
terrain (Soderblom et al., 2002)
Click to expand...


Hmmmm....I think after today's findings at the AGU meeting the Geyser Model of jet production will be dead and it will have something to do with DUSTY PLASMA and Electrostatic effects on the surface of 67P.

Much the same as on the MOON, MERCURY and ALL rocky airless bodies, but we digress from the ELECTRIC COMET...again :)

Lunar water production
Main article: Lunar water

According to European Space Agency (ESA) scientists, hydrogen nuclei from solar winds are absorbed by the lunar regolith (a loose collection of irregular dust grains making up the Moon’s surface). An interaction between the hydrogen nuclei and oxygen present in the dust grains are expected to produce hydroxyl (HO-) and water (H2O).[100]

SARA (Sub keV Atom Reflecting Analyser) instrument developed by ESA and the Indian Space Research Organisation, was designed and used to study the Moon’s surface composition and solar wind-surface interactions. SARA’s results highlight a mystery: not every hydrogen nucleus is absorbed. One out of every five rebounds into space, combining to form an atom of hydrogen.[clarification needed][citation needed] Hydrogen shoots off at speeds of around 200 km per second and escapes without being deflected by the Moon’s weak gravity. This knowledge provides timely advice for scientists who are readying ESA’s BepiColombo mission to Mercury, as that spacecraft will carry two instruments similar to SARA.
Click to expand...

Sounds electric to me :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sol88 said:
In the OSIRIS images, Reality Check.
Click to expand...
That is a lie, Sol88, since the images are clearly captioned as containing jets.
Two views of the same region on the “neck” of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The right image was taken with an exposure time of less than a second and shows details on the comet’s surface. The left image was overexposed (exposure time of 18.45 seconds) so that surface structures are obscured. At the same time, however, jets arising from the comet’s surface become visible.
Click to expand...
 
Sol88 said:
Hmmmm....
Click to expand...
Some seriously managed quote Sol88 :p

Hmmmm.... the ignorance is strong in you, Sol88, :p !
isophote
(computer graphics) A contour of equal luminance in an image.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.... the reading comprehension is low in you, Sol88, :p!
Two of the collimated columns are traceable to sources that appear as dark patches in or adjacent to the bright smooth terrain (Soderblom et al., 2002)
Click to expand...
Here are jets traced to "dark patches" - could those be pits?
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
How many times do you have to be given these links before it sinks in?

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/18/philae-settles-in-dust-covered-ice/

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/12/02/the-quest-for-organic-molecules-on-the-surface-of-67pc-g/

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/files/2014/12/Ptolemy_table.png
Click to expand...
Given Sol88's track record, it will take at least 5 years before he can grasp the concept that a hard surface on a comet made of dust and ice is made of dust and ice, D'rok!

Sol88 started this thread on 6th July 2009 and is in still in denial of the measured densities of comets and the basic properties of electrical discharges (narrow band x-ray emission).
 
Reality Check said:
Given Sol88's track record, it will take at least 5 years before he can grasp the concept that a hard surface on a comet made of dust and ice is made of dust and ice, D'rok!

Sol88 started this thread on 6th July 2009 and is in still in denial of the measured densities of comets and the basic properties of electrical discharges (narrow band x-ray emission).
Click to expand...
That's some serious commitment to fantasy over science.
 
D'rok said:
That's some serious commitment to fantasy over science.
Click to expand...

Given Sol88's track record, it will take at least 5 years before he can grasp the concept that a hard surface on a comet made of dust and ice is made of dust and ice, D'rok!
Click to expand...

They drilled and testes for actual water ice or as the press release says hard surface like ice?

The probe then started to hammer itself into the subsurface, but was unable to make more than a few millimetres of progress even at the highest power level of the hammer motor.

“If we compare the data with laboratory measurements, we think that the probe encountered a hard surface with strength comparable to that of solid ice,” says Tilman Spohn, principal investigator for MUPUS.
Click to expand...

My bold.

The probe then started to hammer itself into the subsurface, but was unable to make more than a few millimetres of progress even at the highest power level of the hammer motor.

So fixed the quote to be more accurate

“If we compare the data with laboratory measurements, we think that the probe encountered a hard surface with strength comparable to that of solid rock,” says Tilman Spohn, principal investigator for MUPUS.

you could not design the MUPUS to hammer into ICE???? someone should get there rear kicked for that one....:rolleyes:
 
So again NO SURFACE ICE FOUND just something hard like ice...or in the Electric comet theory ROCK like an asteroid.

D'Rok where are the geysers? Orifices that the jets emanate from? subsurface chambers of higher pressure gas
 
And this mechanism can not work on a comet because.....

Possible water cycle
Production

Lunar water has two potential origins: water-bearing comets (and other bodies) striking the Moon, and in situ production. It has been theorized that the latter may occur when hydrogen ions (protons) in the solar wind chemically combine with the oxygen atoms present in the lunar minerals (oxides, silicates etc.) to produce small amounts of water trapped in the minerals' crystal lattices or as hydroxyl groups, potential water precursors.[56] (This mineral-bound water, or hydroxylated mineral surface, must not be confused with water ice.)

The hydroxyl surface groups (S–OH) formed by the reaction of protons (H+) with oxygen atoms accessible at oxide surface (S=O) could further be converted in water molecules (H2O) adsorbed onto the oxide mineral's surface. The mass balance of a chemical rearrangement supposed at the oxide surface could be schematically written as follows:

2 S-OH —> S=O + S + H2O

or,

2 S-OH —> S–O–S + H2O


where S represents the oxide surface.

The formation of one water molecule requires the presence of two adjacent hydroxyl groups, or a cascade of successive reactions of one oxygen atom with two protons. This could constitute a limiting factor and decreases the probability of water production if the proton density per surface unit is too low.
Click to expand...
LINK
 
Sol88 said:
They drilled and testes for actual water ice or as the press release says hard surface like ice?
Click to expand...
You expose your ignorance of the Rosetta mission yet again, Sol88 :p?
There was no drill.
The probe (basically a hammer) found a hard surface in a comet made of ice and dust, thus that surface is made of ice and dust.
Reality Check said:
Given Sol88's track record, it will take at least 5 years before he can grasp the concept that a hard surface on a comet made of dust and ice is made of dust and ice, D'rok!

Sol88 started this thread on 6th July 2009 and is in still in denial of the measured densities of comets and the basic properties of electrical discharges (narrow band x-ray emission).
Click to expand...
 
Haig said:
Glad to see you recognise Electric Comets requires an Electric Sun requires an Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology.
Click to expand...

Like creationist who argue that anything found in the cosmos less than billions of years old is automatically evidence for their Young-Earth creationism, EU supporters think any mention of electric fields in mainstream astronomy is automatically evidence for their claims that are long-discarded as useless by scientists and engineers who do real space flight.

Haig said:
The Electric Comet hypothesis goes back much much further than mere decades Tom. In fact, to the second half of the 19th century. see HERE
Click to expand...

Actually, I've found some references going back to the 1700s.

At times when actual data is scarce, hypotheses abound.

When electromagnetism was the new and exciting force in science, it is certainly reasonable to explore ideas of what it might help explain.

But real science is more than just an 'idea'. A successful theory lets you relate quantities in places where you can measure to different quantities and/or different places and times. The theory that succeeds is the theory that can do that. Electric Comets were a reasonable idea, even hypothesis, at one time, but they have long since failed. The EU claim that the tiny X-ray fluxes we see, predicted in the 1970s by mainstream astronomers, are evidence that comets are a discharge phenomena is like arguing the existence of mountains is proof that the Earth is not round. The X-rays, like the mountains, are just tiny deviations from the main model.

Haig said:
A major catalyst for independent re-consideration of electricity and magnetism in space came in 1950, with the publication of Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.

Mainstream at that time denied Electromagnetism in Space or ANY need for it.
Click to expand...

I've got loads of papers exploring cosmic electrical phenomena prior to the publication of Worlds in Collision in 1950, so your statement is demonstrably false. The big jump in the study of electrical phenomena in space was the advent of space flight even with the early high-altitude sub-orbital launches like Aerobee and Viking, also building up in the 1950s, where we could finally do actual measurements of particles and fields in space.

Haig said:
What do you think drives the solar wind to accelerate to over a million miles an hour way past the planets. Also, why does it vary so much in velocity?

The EU / PC view is galactic birkeland currents control the Sun's electric field.
Click to expand...

Really? You spout big numbers but don't present them in relevant context, so you clearly don't understand what they really mean.

How much of a voltage difference is needed to accelerate a proton or electron from zero to 1,000,000 miles per hour? This is a question that a competent high-school physics student can answer, yet I've not received an answer from any EU 'theorist'. 1e6 miles/hour is about 4e5 meters/second, so:

0.5 *m*v^2 = qV
0.5* (1.67e-27 kg)* (400e3 m/s)^2 = (1.6e-19 coulombs)* volts

comes out to about 840 volts for protons - about the magnitude found in the mainstream models. It's even lower for electrons. But it doesn't even need to be that large as collisional dynamics are important closer to the photosphere to give an initial push.

Rather inconsistent with EU claims, isn't it.

Even worse for EU is if the solar wind were driven by an external electric field, the flow would be much more uniform as acceleration by the field would dominate the flow. In the measured solar wind, the speed is roughly constant after the initial acceleration closer to the Sun, what you'd expect from a hydrodynamic flow as the density and pressure drops due to expansion, like from a popped balloon.

1) Where is the EU method of computing the electric and magnetic fields and particle fluxes in any of these galactic birkeland currents?

2) Where are the numbers that we can compare to actual spacecraft measurement?

3) What is the amount of microwave emission we would detect for such currents? Both the one driving the Sun and those driving other stars? How does this compare to current instrument sensitivity in the detection bands of instruments like PLANCK or even ground-based radio telescopes?

The standard models do pretty good at this, and at best they have voltage differences across the heliosphere of 1000 volts or so, but much of this voltage difference is induced by the plasma flow. These results are consistent with spacecraft measurements, not the millions/billions of volts claimed by EU.

Mainstream space weather models like Enlil are running all the time, such as those presented at the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center, so we know when to take precautions to protect astronauts and satellites. Gee, they even show irregularities in the flow.

Most of these models were developed and initially tested on desktop class computers readily available today. So where is the EU equivalent? What's their excuse? Or are they still waiting for others to do their work for them and they'll just hang around to claim credit for any mentions of electric fields?

Haig said:
Come on Tom all you do is set up straw men and then knock them over
Click to expand...

As I stated, EU supporters always complain, but never present a usable analysis themselves. They just make excuses and continue to insist that others must do EU's work for them. That's just a cover to hide the fact that they really don't know what they're talking about.

H. Benioff. The Present Status of the Electrical Theory of Comet Forms. Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 36:200–203, August 1924.
Benioff gets a value for solar charge over 100x larger than that estimated by other methods, which reveals a consistency problem.

N. T. Bobrovnikoff. The Present State of the Theory of Comets. Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 40:164–190, June 1928. doi: 10.1086/123823.
"As for the rival explanations of the physical properties of comets only the electrostatical theory will .be mentioned here. It was developed largely by Zöllner in his book Uber die Natur der Cometen, 1872, and persisted until quite recent time. It is dearly unsatisfactory as it leads to an impossible electrostatic charge of the Sun and also in view of the presence of the non-polar molecules, like CN, in abundance in the cometary heads."


So you still want to push electric comets?

4) What's the electric charge on the comet and the Sun?

5) How does the presence of the electrostatic force between the comet and Sun affect the comet's motion?

6) Want to complain that this doesn't include effects of the Sun's magnetic field? Then compute them, otherwise you're just making excuses.

Yet without including any of these 'electric sun' features, the Rosetta team managed to navigate their spacecraft for 10 years to a precision rendezvous.

7) If the mainstream model is so wrong, how did they manage that when they didn't include all the charges and electric fields in this environment advocated by EU?

So far, we've had no demonstration from Electric Universe supporters are even competent enough to compute the trajectory based on their model, much less build the spacecraft.

I've got a code that can be used for computing model runs like described in questions 4-6 above. I could run some of the EU-type models with it, placing charges and magnetic fields consistent with what EU 'theorists' describe, but when the results don't match their claims, EU supporters will cry 'strawman'! and hope that no one will call them on it.

Perhaps I should post a run just to see how well that prediction holds up...

I'm waiting for some predictions which can be used to do real stuff from EU advocates, not the useless fairy tale we keep receiving from them.
 
Sol88 said:
So fixed the quote to be more accurate
Click to expand...
No that "fix" is a lie by putting delusional words into the mouth of a scientist who is not an idiot - he knows how dense a comet is, Sol88 :( .
This is what he actually said:
“If we compare the data with laboratory measurements, we think that the probe encountered a hard surface with strength comparable to that of solid ice,” says Tilman Spohn, principal investigator for MUPUS
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
No that "fix" is a lie by putting delusional words into the mouth of a scientist who is not an idiot - he knows how dense a comet is, Sol88 :( .
This is what he actually said:
Click to expand...

So how hard is ice? are you saying the primary instrument to test for surface ice failed because the ice was TOO HARD? :eek:

I mean i can do the experiment in the back yard, I get a metal skewer and tap gently (Power mode 1) and I can quite easy chip away at the ice, if i do this on rock it doesn't seem to make a dent...at power mode 2 I can chip a little deeper into the ice but still not so much into the rock at MAXIMUM power I can well and truly penetrate the ice but have only scratched at the rock.

and since comets, as Reality Check likes to remind us, are not ROCK that leaves ONLY ice...so you (mainstream) are well and truly up the creek when you find no ICE.

and like the quote from old mate from ESA "rocky like material but not rock"...ha ha ha that's a good one. Looks like rock hard like rock but not rock but ice 'cos we can see it shining thru the dust layers!

Who's delusional again?

anyway back to the subsurface chamber jetting out gas and dust under pressure through an vent or orifice....have we seen ANY yet Reality Check?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
So how hard is ice?
Click to expand...
So how are you so unable to understand what you read, Sol88?
The point I made was that it is a lie to put words in the mouth of any one by changing a quote from them. This is especially true when you insult the intelligence of an expert in comets. He knows that their density is less than water and so they are made of ice and water. He knows that there will be no solid rock on the comet.

Anyway - back to ignoring the stupidity of questioning the scientific model of comets and returning to the topic of this thread:
17 December 2014 Sol88: Please point out in the OSIRIS images or other Rosetta images where the electrical discharges from high points predicted in the electric comet idea are.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
So how are you so unable to understand what you read, Sol88?
The point I made was that it is a lie to put words in the mouth of any one by changing a quote from them. This is especially true when you insult the intelligence of an expert in comets. He knows that their density is less than water and so they are made of ice and water. He knows that there will be no solid rock on the comet.

Anyway - back to ignoring the stupidity of questioning the scientific model of comets and returning to the topic of this thread:
17 December 2014 Sol88: Please point out in the OSIRIS images or other Rosetta images where the electrical discharges from high points predicted in the electric comet idea are.
Click to expand...

They wont release them????????? There just pictures right?

Why not release them to the public???

are they scared?

So MY PREDICTION..when they release them you will NOT find and orifice or vent at the source of the jets, until then it's all speculation.

but it is the test

so maybe by tomorrow we can talk some more
Abstract:
The Rosetta spacecraft is investigating comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko since mid-July 2014. Jet structures have been identified in the coma indicating anisotropic outgassing activity from the nucleus surface. We will report on the physical characteristics of the gas and dust jets including their brightness and density enhancements, radial expansion, association with source regions and time evolution.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sol88: How are you going to tell an electrical discharge from a jet in an image

Sol88 said:
...
Click to expand...
snipped a reply irrelevant to
Reality Check said:
So how are you so unable to understand what you read, Sol88?
The point I made was that it is a lie to put words in the mouth of any one by changing a quote from them. This is especially true when you insult the intelligence of an expert in comets. He knows that their density is less than water and so they are made of ice and water. He knows that there will be no solid rock on the comet.

Anyway - back to ignoring the stupidity of questioning the scientific model of comets and returning to the topic of this thread:
17 December 2014 Sol88: Please point out in the OSIRIS images or other Rosetta images where the electrical discharges from high points predicted in the electric comet idea are.
Click to expand...
which however leads to another question:
17 December 2014 Sol88: How are you going to determine that you see an electrical discharge in any of the Rosetta images (other then fantasizing about it), Sol88?
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Addressing some Sol88 ignorance:
Click to expand...

and they broke it at >2Mpa??? maybe you should have sent them the link, Reality Check :D

Results (15) Surface must be >2 MPa hard! The comet remains surprising bizarre and uncooperative
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/Philae_MUPUS/status/533695419843637248

The mechanical properties of ice and snow are reviewed. The tensile strength of ice varies from 0.7–3.1 MPa and the compressive strength varies from 5–25 MPa over the temperature range −10°C to −20°C.
Click to expand...

that's a whoopsie there 'ol mte
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
and they broke it at >2Mpa???
Click to expand...
And a lie about the probe breaking, Sol88 :p!
They did the reasonable thing - they designed the probe to work up to a pressure that should have gone through the material detected in other missions, e.g. Deep Impact.
They ran the probe up to its maximum designed pressure.
https://twitter.com/Philae_MUPUS/sta...95419843637248
Results (15) Surface must be >2 MPa hard! The comet remains surprising bizarre and uncooperative
Click to expand...
The anchor was designed to go through harder stuff but it did not work
The anchor was designed to deal with harder stuff (~8-10MPa) than MUPUS, no sensible electronics boards in there too.
Click to expand...
What the results suggest to scientists who know about comets:
Hard sintered still porous ice at low temperatures. Think of the last old pile of snow that's still there around Easter.
Click to expand...

ETA: And a hint of quote mining because the next tweet is:
Results (16). To put this into perspective: MUPUS performed beautifully inside the specifications. The comet failed to cooperate
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
 
Reality Check said:
The point I made was that it is a lie to put words in the mouth of any one by changing a quote from them. This is especially true when you insult the intelligence of an expert in comets. He knows that their density is less than water and so they are made of ice and water. He knows that there will be no solid rock on the comet.
Click to expand...
Missed you ignoring this, Sol88 so:
17 December 2014 Sol88: Do you understand how bad it is to change someone's quote to something that they would never say?
 
Results (16). To put this into perspective: MUPUS performed beautifully inside the specifications. The comet failed to cooperate
Click to expand...

Bloody comet not conforming to theory!! Ha ha ha :)

Oh well, we will just say it's ice because now we have no way of knowing!!

everything we were going to use to test this very important aspect of comets FAILED :eusa_whistle:
 
Sol88 said:
pixel saturation at the source of the strongest most active jets!
Click to expand...

So the EDM only needs to happen at a few places on the comet's surface to release enough oxygen to account for all the water? Or is the EDM happening all over the surface, but it will only be photographically visible at a few places?
 
Matthew Cline said:
You don't consider "pixel saturation at the source of the strongest most active jets" to be an answer?
Click to expand...

Yep, that's my answer for it, what's your Mathew Cline?

Lets have a look at those bright patches in a OSIRIS image?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom