Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

jonesdave116 · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88 said:
THE FRIABLE SPONGE MODEL OF A COMETARY NUCLEUS M. Horanyi,1 T. I. Gombosi,1 T. E. Cravens,2 A. Korosmezey,1 K. Kecskemety,1 A. F. Nagy,2 AND K. SZEGO1

Interesting in the above post about the MUPUS findings, don’t ya think jd116?

Totally irrelevant to MUPUS. That was written in 1983. We hadn't even visited a comet, let alone landed on one.

jonesdave116 · Feb 4, 2018

So again the above paper is humstrung based on the assumptions of a light fluffy nucleus!

Am I the only one getting sick of this wilful stupidity? Hey ho. READ WHAT YOU QUOTED!!!
They are NOT using the assumption of a fluffy nucleus. That is precisely what they are not bloody saying. What do you think 515 ≤ ρ ≤1635 kg m-³ means? It means they are using a lower bound for the nucleus bulk density, and a higher bound for the densest grains found. That is, between 515 - 1635 kg/m³. What is fluffy about that? The fluffy grains were ~ < 1 kg/m³!

jonesdave116 · Feb 4, 2018

And I’m still calling ROCK!

Who gives a toss? You wouldn't know a rock if it happened to mercifully hit you on the head.
Do please tell us; what happened when a projectile hit that rock at ~ 10 km/s? What came out? Just dust and ice and vapour, yes? Strange rock. What is the density of that rock? Very low, isn't it? What is its shear modulus? What is its Young's modulus? What sort of strange rock is this, that sits above a bunch of ice? How did that happen? A bit like an upside down Antarctica. Lol. Rock!

Sol88 · Feb 4, 2018

jonesdave116 said:
No, it isn't. As far as I can see there are only one or two people on the planet who still believe in this idiotic woo. It is no more a debate than astrology, which has far more adherents.
And the paper you stupidly quoted (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) is the same one whose abstract I have linked umpteen times to show the what CASSE/ SESAME observed was consistent with the low strength of a porous ice surface, and nowhere near that of rock!!! How stupid can you be? Why don't you read these damned things when they are first linked, instead of embarrassing yourself like this? To wit:

The abstract I've linked a squillion times:

Constraints for the subsurface structure at the Abydos site on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko resulting from CASSE listening to the MUPUS insertion phase
Knapmeyer, M. et al.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFM.P42A..04K

I've almost learned that passage by heart, I've had to paste it that often. Now, let's have a butcher's at what Knapmeyer says in the full paper you mentioned;

The SESAME/CASSE instrument listening to the MUPUS PEN insertion phase on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
Knapmeyer, M. et al
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576516301643

And is also consistent with what was seen at Tempel 1, and the cliffs at 67P after collapses. So no rock anywhere to be seen, no debate to be had. This was all settled in 2005 at Tempel 1. Rock is a non-starter.

Ok then

we find a shear modulus between 3.6 MPa and 346 MPa, a Young’s modulus between 7.2 MPa and 980 MPa, and a bulk porosity below 0.74.

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 M. Knapmeyer a , ∗, H.-H. Fischer b , J. Knollenberg a , K.J. Seidensticker a , K. Thiel c , W. Arnold d , e , C. Faber a , D. Möhlmann a , 1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2017.12.002

What say ye on shear modulus between 3.6 MPa and 346 MPa, a Young’s modulus between 7.2 MPa and 980 MPa?

ROCK is back in the mix sport, wake up!

jonesdave116 · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88 said:
Ok then

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 M. Knapmeyer a , ∗, H.-H. Fischer b , J. Knollenberg a , K.J. Seidensticker a , K. Thiel c , W. Arnold d , e , C. Faber a , D. Möhlmann a , 1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2017.12.002

What say ye on shear modulus between 3.6 MPa and 346 MPa, a Young’s modulus between 7.2 MPa and 980 MPa?

ROCK is back in the mix sport, wake up!

No it isn't. I'll repeat, for the hard of reading:
Do please tell us; what happened when a projectile hit that rock at ~ 10 km/s? What came out? Just dust and ice and vapour, yes? Strange rock. What is the density of that rock? Very low, isn't it? What is its shear modulus? What is its Young's modulus? What sort of strange rock is this, that sits above a bunch of ice? How did that happen? A bit like an upside down Antarctica. Lol. Rock!
I will add that we can see the innards of these 'rocks' when they fall off cliffs. White inside, with the signature of H₂O ice. What sort of rock would that be?

Whoops, nearly forgot; what sort of 'rock' develops thermal crack polygons? Feel free to look for analogues on Earth and Mars.

Sol88 · Feb 4, 2018

Why the hell would you want to wheel out the prediction by W.Thornhill of two flashes? As observed?

DEEP IMPACT: THE FIRST SECOND. H. J. Melosh and the Deep Impact Team, Lunar and Planetary Lab (University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721, jmelosh@lpl.arizona.edu).

Assuming an albedo of 0.1, appropriate for mafic silicate liquids, the total mass of the droplets was about 4000 kg. Because this is 10 times the mass of the impactor, we assume that the glowing material originated mainly from the comet and is thus probably silicate in composition.

Also, why did the point of impact “move”

Fig. 5. Movement of the impact flash at early times, illustrated by the location of the center of brightness for a given MRI exposure. The letters correspond to the exposure frames from Fig. 2: (A) represents the center of brightness of the rst light, (C) represents the beginning of the delayed brightening (100–200 m downrange of the rst light), and (D) represents the center of brightness of the rst saturated exposure (located another 100–200 m downrange).

Evolution of the Deep Impact ash: Implications for the nucleus surface based on laboratory experiments✩ Carolyn M. Ernst∗, Peter H. Schultz

Are you doing a captain swoop?

Already explained it's a standard tactic.
Beat you down until you give up then declare victory.

Sol88 · Feb 4, 2018

jonesdave116 said:
Am I the only one getting sick of this wilful stupidity? Hey ho. READ WHAT YOU QUOTED!!!
They are NOT using the assumption of a fluffy nucleus. That is precisely what they are not bloody saying. What do you think 515 ≤ ρ ≤1635 kg m-³ means? It means they are using a lower bound for the nucleus bulk density, and a higher bound for the densest grains found. That is, between 515 - 1635 kg/m³. What is fluffy about that? The fluffy grains were ~ < 1 kg/m³!

What is the density of the compact particles?

The Man · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88 said:
Ok then

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 M. Knapmeyer a , ∗, H.-H. Fischer b , J. Knollenberg a , K.J. Seidensticker a , K. Thiel c , W. Arnold d , e , C. Faber a , D. Möhlmann a , 1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2017.12.002

What say ye on shear modulus between 3.6 MPa and 346 MPa, a Young’s modulus between 7.2 MPa and 980 MPa?

ROCK is back in the mix sport, wake up!

For shear modulus, higher (more rigid) than rubber (0.3 MPa)
less rigid than plywood (620 MPa)
and within the range with polyethylene (120 MPa)

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/modulus-rigidity-d_946.html

For Young's modulus it works out the same (see page 16)

http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/web/library/enginfo/cueddatabooks/materials.pdf

Wood just at the high end of the given range, elastomers at the low end and polymer foams in the middle of the given range.

Concrete, brick and stone are an order of magnitude above the top of the given range.

jonesdave116 · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88 said:
Why the hell would you want to wheel out the prediction by W.Thornhill of two flashes? As observed?

DEEP IMPACT: THE FIRST SECOND. H. J. Melosh and the Deep Impact Team, Lunar and Planetary Lab (University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721, jmelosh@lpl.arizona.edu).

Because Thornhill wasn't the first to predict that. It had been seen in lab experiments by Schultz. What Thornhill predicted was a pre-impact flash, and that didn't happen. Simple.

In this scenario (and in Scenario 1b), a three-component plume should be observed in the MRI and may allow the identification of this surface property.
i.T = 0.06 s (first frame): very weak flash.
ii.T = 1s (~17 frames): high-angle jet-like plasma plume due to cavitation and redirection back out the penetration funnel.
iii.T=1 to 20s: opaque spherical cloud forming a shadow above the
comet surface.
iv.T = 20 s to 100 s: high-angle ejecta plume extending >
10 km above the surface surrounded by a high-angle (~60?) ejecta curtain.
v.T > 200 s: advancing annulus of disturbed cometary surface near the
crater as low-velocity components return. High-angle central plume
may detach from the crater due to collapse and shut off of deep ejecta

EXPECTATIONS FOR CRATER SIZE AND PHOTOMETRIC EVOLUTION FROM THE DEEP IMPACT COLLISION
Schultz, P. H. et al
https://pds-smallbodies.astro.umd.e...ience_reviews/crater_size_evolutn_schultz.pdf

But you already knew that, because I've posted it before. See what Captain Swoop means?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10900541&postcount=1625

Also, why did the point of impact “move”

Evolution of the Deep Impact ash: Implications for the nucleus surface based on laboratory experiments✩ Carolyn M. Ernst∗, Peter H. Schultz

The point of impact didn't move. That would be ridiculous. I cannot believe that in over a decade you have never read the DI papers properly. Why is that? Because the results killed this idiocy stone dead right then.

EDIT:
By the way, the scenarios outlined by Schultz are based on real science. Based on lab experiment. As opposed to the wishy-washy tabloid psychic crap trotted out by the likes of the conman Thornhill.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: Persists in irrelevant questions and lies to derail from his comet delusions

Sol88 said:
Layered or nucleated?....

5 February 20918 Sol88: Persists in irrelevant questions to derail from his comet delusions.

5 February 20918 Sol88: Persistent ices in quotes lie when he knows ices have been detected.

His 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, etc. etc.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: The money is on INTENSE delusions about electric fields

Sol88 said:
The MONEY is still on INTENSE electric fields!

5 February 2018 Sol88: The money is on INTENSE delusions about electric fields to be ignorantly repeated forever

jonesdave116 · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88 said:
Why the hell would you want to wheel out the prediction by W.Thornhill of two flashes? As observed?

Right, let's actually have a look at what Wal predicted shall we?

Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile, exceeding any reasonable model for X-ray production through the mechanics of impact. The intensity curve will be that of a lightning bolt (sudden onset, exponential decline) and may well include more than one peak.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050704predictions.htm

Fail. So, what was actually seen?

The comet was relatively faint on July 4th, and the total increase in X-ray flux due to the Deep Impact event was small, ∼20% of the immediate pre-impact value, consistent with estimates that the total coma neutral gas release due to the impact was 5 × 10⁶ kg ( ∼10 h of normal emission). No obvious prompt X-ray flash due to the impact was seen.

Chandra observations of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 during the Deep Impact campaign
Lisse, C. M. et al.
http://ftp.astro.umd.edu/pub/lisse/xrays/final_proof_YICAR8214_cml_comments_18jul2007.pdf

The X-ray light curve indicates that the comet exhibited a prolonged soft X-ray outburst just after impact of the NASA Deep Impact (DI) spacecraft and enhanced X-ray activity lasted for 12 days

.

SWIFT X-RAY TELESCOPE OBSERVATIONS OF THE DEEP IMPACT COLLISION
Willingale, R. et al.
https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/results/publist/Willingale_ApJ_649_541_2006.pdf

So, we may ask ourselves, why has dunderdolts had this on their site as a 'successful' prediction for years? It was quite obviously not a prediction, as it was already outlined by Pete Schultz in a work pre-dating Thornhill's tabloid psychic impression. Secondly, his first flash was supposed to be pre-impact, and produce shed loads of X-rays. Well, that is quite obviously a failed prediction, isn't it?

CONCLUSION:
Both Thornhill and dunderdolts are lying in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of their scientifically challenged acolytes. Shame on them.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: A lie that forbidden lines are caused buy electric fields.

Sol88 said:
Like...forbidden oxygen lines?

5 February 2018 Sol88: A lie that forbidden lines are caused by "intense" electric fields as reading what he cited would reveal.

forbidden oxygen lines has no mention of any electric fields. He has already been told the source of forbidden lines - the low density of the gas or plasma allowing rare long loved states to decay.

5 February 2018 Sol88: Usual delusions about comet papers, e.g. the photochemistry of forbidden O lines at Comet 67P.

Photochemistry of forbidden oxygen lines in the inner coma of 67P/Churyumov‐Gerasimenko

Sol88 said:
Interesting to note we do not use photo dissociation here on earth.

5 February 2018 Sol88: Stupid and irrelevant "we do no use photo dissociation here on earth" lie when a few seconds on Google gives photodissociation being used here on Earth :eye-poppi

!

5 February 2018 Sol88: Utter stupidity of a electron beam ion trap Wikipedia article as if it were every experiment on Earth!

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: Insanity of argument by insult to derail from his comet delusions

Sol88 said:
Not really the sharpest tool in the shed, jd116! ...

5 February 2018 Sol88: Insanity of argument by insult to derail from his comet delusions.

5 February 2018 Sol88: Idiocy that his assertions about the working comet model supports his comet delusions.

5 February 2018 Sol88: A lie that there is evidence for his deluded electric fields.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: A mindless repeat of his utterly ignorant comet delusions yet again

Sol88 said:
C and O from the refractory material (rock) from the nucleus and H from the solar wind, simple stupid it is...

5 February 2018 Sol88: A mindless repeat of a couple of his utterly ignorant comet delusions yet again.

His 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, etc. etc.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: Meaningless science word salad and lies to derail from his comet delusions

Sol88 said:
Ions jamming on anchors is achieved thru “double layers” depending which side the + side is and if you did not already know WILL accelerate them on the otherside!!!!...

5 February 2018 Sol88: Meaningless science word salad to derail from his comet delusions.

5 February 2018 Sol88: An ignorant delusion about double layers at comets

5 February 2018 Sol88: Repeated idiocy that his delusions about comet papers supports his comet delusions.

5 February 2018 Sol88: Repeated ices in quotes lie when he knows about the detection of ices on comets

His 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, etc. etc.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: Usual idiocy and ices in quote lie to derail from his comets delusions

Sol88 said:
...Interesting!...

5 February 2018 Sol88: Usual idiocy and ices in quote lie to derail from his comets delusions.

5 February 2018 Sol88: Total stupidity of threatening to derail from his comet delusions into the insanely deluded "electric sun".

For others:
This is him mindlessly following every bit of the Thunderbolt cult's dogma. The electric sun denial of fusion at the core of stars such as the Sun is denial of the basic physics taught in first year astronomy courses! The balance of gravity and pressure needed for a stable star means that temperature and pressure inside a star has to increase with depth. A textbook first year astronomy exercise is to do the calculations for that balance. This is simple for anyone to understand. The weight of layers above a depth increases so the pressure has to increase to hold the layer up. That means that temperature has to increase. The result is that every star has to have an energy source at its core to provide that temperature gradient.

The calculations give the temperature, pressure and density at the core of stars (computer models are needed for the more accurate values). Apply nuclear physics and there must be fusion happening at the core of stars. We detect the predicted neutrino flux from that fusion. We get the formation of elements that we detect in older stars and nova.

The Thunderbolts cultists basically want the Sun to be a light bulb powered by imaginary electric currents. No fusion at all according to some idiots. Fusion magically happening somewhere, e.g. at the surface but not frying Earth with gamma rays.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: Usual idiocy of questions to derail from his comet delusions

Sol88 said:
What model was used for the “outgassing” from 19P/Holmes?....

5 February 2018 Sol88: Usual idiocy of irrelevant questions to derail from his comet delusions (outgassing from sublimating ices this time :eye-poppi

!).

His 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, etc. etc.

5 February 2018 Sol88: An insane "ad hoc complete rubbish with no basis in reality" lie.
That is an insane lie because he knows about the centuries of observations of real comets, the scientific model of comets as ices and dust form those observations in the 1950's, the more accurate modern observations confirming that model and the many visits to comets by probes in the real world that confirmed that comets are ices and dust. For example, the Rosetta mission to Comet 67P.

Sol88 · Feb 4, 2018

The Man said:
For shear modulus, higher (more rigid) than rubber (0.3 MPa)
less rigid than plywood (620 MPa)
and within the range with polyethylene (120 MPa)

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/modulus-rigidity-d_946.html

For Young's modulus it works out the same (see page 16)

http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/web/library/enginfo/cueddatabooks/materials.pdf

Wood just at the high end of the given range, elastomers at the low end and polymer foams in the middle of the given range.

Concrete, brick and stone are an order of magnitude above the top of the given range.

Wonder if they had used KNOWN densities from returned comet samples?

Stardust

Sol88 · Feb 4, 2018

Reality Check said:
5 February 2018 Sol88: Usual idiocy and ices in quote lie to derail from his comets delusions.

5 February 2018 Sol88: Total stupidity of threatening to derail from his comet delusions into the insanely deluded "electric sun".

For others:
This is him mindlessly following every bit of the Thunderbolt cult's dogma. The electric sun denial of fusion at the core of stars such as the Sun is denial of the basic physics taught in first year astronomy courses! The balance of gravity and pressure needed for a stable star means that temperature and pressure inside a star has to increase with depth. A textbook first year astronomy exercise is to do the calculations for that balance. This is simple for anyone to understand. The weight of layers above a depth increases so the pressure has to increase to hold the layer up. That means that temperature has to increase. The result is that every star has to have an energy source at its core to provide that temperature gradient.

The calculations give the temperature, pressure and density at the core of stars (computer models are needed for the more accurate values). Apply nuclear physics and there must be fusion happening at the core of stars. We detect the predicted neutrino flux from that fusion. We get the formation of elements that we detect in older stars and nova.

The Thunderbolts cultists basically want the Sun to be a light bulb powered by imaginary electric currents. No fusion at all according to some idiots. Fusion magically happening somewhere, e.g. at the surface but not frying Earth with gamma rays.

Not to go off topic but what’s going on in the corona then rc? :blush:

Do YOU know?

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: A stupid lie that "ambipolar electric fields" kill the comet model

Sol88 said:
Sorry not “double layers” but ambipolar electric fields!

5 February 2018 Sol88: A stupid lie that "ambipolar electric fields" kill the comet model to derail from his comet delusions.
The comet model includes comet coma being plasma and having electric fields maybe for the last 70 years. Ambipolar electric fields are expected in the comet model :eye-poppi

!

The role of electric fields in the cometary environment by Cravens, T.E.; Gombosi, T.I.; Gribov, B.E. published in 1984.

Suprathermal electrons near the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at 3 AU: Model comparisons with Rosetta data

His 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, etc. etc.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: An irrelevant question to detail from his comet delusions

Sol88 said:
What model of “outgassing” does a super duper space plasma physicist use?

5 February 2018 Sol88: An irrelevant question to detail from his comet delusions.

His 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, etc. etc.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: An insane, insulting, lying rant to derail from his comet delusions

Sol88 said:
You are another ignorant mainstream “dirtysnowballer”....

5 February 2018 Sol88: An insane, insulting, lying rant to derail from his comet delusions
It seems he is devolving into a troll because he cannot defend the ignorant delusion that comets are rocks, etc. with actual evidence.

5 February 2018 Sol88: Repeats the ices in quotes lie.

We are people who know basic arithmetic (0.6 g/cc is not 3.0 g/cc as he has known for 8 years now :eye-poppi

) and have learned about real comets from credible science sources.

He is mindlessly parroting every insane delusion from the Thunderbolts cult with its documented lies. And seems to have his personal delusions in
His 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, etc. etc.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: "Points already debunked" lie when he confirms derailing from his delusions

Sol88 said:
Points already debunked....

5 February 2018 Sol88: "Points already debunked" lie when he confirms derailing from his comet delusions by citing an irrelevant ices and dust paper yet again :eye-poppi

!

His 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, etc. etc.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: Lies about a Comet 17P/Holmes paper to derail from his comet delusions

Sol88 said:
Why did Comet 17P/Holmes burst out?
Nucleus splitting or delayed sublimation?

5 February 2018 Sol88: Lies about a Comet 17P/Holmes paper to derail from his comet delusions.
The paper gives 2 scientifically credible explanations for the outburst from Comet 17P/Holmes.

An ices and dust comet paper is not relevant toHis 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, etc. etc.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: Irreverent real comet papers to derail from his comets delusions

Sol88 said:
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 M. Knapmeyer a , ∗, H.-H. Fischer b , J. Knollenberg a , K.J. Seidensticker a , K. Thiel c , W. Arnold d , e , C. Faber a , D. Möhlmann a , 1

5 February 2018 Sol88: Irreverent real comet papers to derail from his comet delusions.

His 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, etc. etc.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: A lie about an irrelevant comet paper to derail from his comets delusions

Sol88 said:
THE FRIABLE SPONGE MODEL OF A COMETARY NUCLEUS M. Horanyi,1 T. I. Gombosi,1 T. E. Cravens,2 A. Korosmezey,1 K. Kecskemety,1 A. F. Nagy,2 AND K. SZEGO1

5 February 2018 Sol88: A lie about an irrelevant comet paper to derail from his comets delusions.

THE FRIABLE SPONGE MODEL OF A COMETARY NUCLEUS M. Horanyi,1 T. I. Gombosi,1 T. E. Cravens,2 A. Korosmezey,1 K. Kecskemety,1 A. F. Nagy,2 AND K. SZEGO1
No mention of or applicability to MUPUS because this is a paper from 1984 :jaw-dropp

!

The Man · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88 said:
Wonder if they had used KNOWN densities from returned comet samples?

Stardust

What for? Density is not a factor of shear modulus or Young's modulus. In the linked chart on page 16 you will note different materials with the same Young's modulus but different densities.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: Lies about an ices and dust comet to derail from his comet delusions

Sol88 said:
...What say ye on shear modulus between 3.6 MPa and 346 MPa, a Young’s modulus between 7.2 MPa and 980 MPa?

5 February 2018 Sol88: Lies about an ices and dust comet to derail from his comet delusions.

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

The accelerometers of the SESAME/CASSE instrument aboard Rosetta's lander Philae recorded surface waves produced during the MUPUS hammering phase. After presenting evidence that all feet of Philae were in contact with the ground, we analyze group arrival time differences between the three feet of Philae and obtain a Rayleigh wave velocity between 79ms−1 and 400ms−1, which translate into a shear modulus μ of 3.6 MPa ≤ μ ≤ 346 MPa, and a Young's modulus E of 7.2 MPa ≤ E ≤ 980 MPa (with the lower bounds being better constrained than the upper bounds). Mixture models of snow and regolith suggest a porosity below 0.74. From the frequency-dependent dispersion of the average signal we conclude that the above values are valid for a surface layer of 10 cm to 50 cm thickness, while rigidity is significantly reduced underneath this layer. Our findings are consistent with the concept of a thin consolidated shell around a less rigid interior

The text that makes his "rock" assertion into a lie is highlighted.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: A lie that W.Thornhill's prediction was just 2 flashes

Sol88 said:
Why the hell would you want to wheel out the prediction by W.Thornhill of two flashes? As observed?

He has known for years about the Deep Impact lies from Thornhill.
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

5 February 2018 Sol88: A blatant lie that W.Thornhill's prediction was just 2 flashes.
Thornhill predicted a flash before impact. There is obviously at least 1 flash on and after impact.

5 February 2018 Sol88: A blatant lie that Thornhill's two flashes were observed.
What was observed was a flash on impact followed by a flash after impact as predicted for an oblique impact on a comet made of ices and dust! The Ames Research Center experiments showed that oblique impacts give 2 flashes on and after impact.

5 February 2018 Sol88: A lie of jonesdave116 bringing up Thornhill's flash before impact lie.
jonesdave116's post is about the ejecta of vapour, ices and dust from Deep Impact.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: A lie about the Stardust mission which did not return any "comet samples"

Sol88 said:
Wonder if they had used KNOWN densities from returned comet samples?

Stardust

5 February 2018 Sol88: A lie about the Stardust mission which did not return any "comet samples" of a comet nucleus.
The paper is about the comet nucleus. Stardust returned dust particles from the comet coma, not any samples from the comet nucleus.

The Stardust results are one of the numerous reasons that he is deluded about comets - it did not return any grains that originally came from rocky planets such as the Earth. No basalt. No limestone. No shale. No fossils

!

His 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, etc. etc.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

Sol88: Off topic onto his cult's even more insane delusions about the Sun

Sol88 said:
Not to go off topic but what’s going on in the corona then rc?

5 February 2018 Sol88: Off topic onto his cult's even more insane delusions about the Sun

!

The Sun cannot exist in the Thunderbolts cult delusions which what makes them insane. Remove an energy source at the core of the Sun and the Sun becomes a white dwarf. Their delusions about the corona are thus moot.

The sane world of astrophysics has the coronal heating problem, its solutions and the research for evidence to support or invalidate the solutions.

Reality Check · Feb 4, 2018

649 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 2 February 2018 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

2 February 2017 Sol88: Persistent "ices" lie when ices have been detected on comets.
2 February 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of real world ice being "magical"
5 February 20918 Sol88: Persists in irrelevant questions to derail from his comet delusions.
5 February 20918 Sol88: Persistent ices in quotes lie when he knows ices have been detected.
5 February 2018 Sol88: The money is on INTENSE delusions about electric fields to be ignorantly repeated forever
5 February 2018 Sol88: A lie that forbidden lines are caused by "intense" electric fields as reading what he cited would reveal.
5 February 2018 Sol88: Usual delusions about comet papers, e.g. the photochemistry of forbidden O lines at Comet 67P.
5 February 2018 Sol88: Stupid and irrelevant "we do no use photo dissociation here on earth" lie when a few seconds on Google gives photodissociation being used here on Earth !
5 February 2018 Sol88: Utter stupidity of a electron beam ion trap Wikipedia article as if it were every experiment on Earth!
5 February 2018 Sol88: Insanity of argument by insult to derail from his comet delusions.
5 February 2018 Sol88: Idiocy that his assertions about the working comet model supports his comet delusions.
5 February 2018 Sol88: A lie that there is evidence for his deluded electric fields.
5 February 2018 Sol88: A mindless repeat of a couple of his utterly ignorant comet delusions yet again.
5 February 2018 Sol88: Meaningless science word salad to derail from his comet delusions.
5 February 2018 Sol88: An ignorant delusion about double layers at comets
5 February 2018 Sol88: Repeated idiocy that his delusions about comet papers supports his comet delusions.
5 February 2018 Sol88: Repeated ices in quotes lie when he knows about the detection of ices on comets
5 February 2018 Sol88: Usual idiocy and ices in quote lie to derail from his comets delusions.
5 February 2018 Sol88: Total stupidity of threatening to derail from his comet delusions into the insanely deluded "electric sun".
5 February 2018 Sol88: Usual idiocy of irrelevant questions to derail from his comet delusions (outgassing from sublimating ices this time !).
5 February 2018 Sol88: An insane "ad hoc complete rubbish with no basis in reality" lie.
5 February 2018 Sol88: A stupid lie that "ambipolar electric fields" kill the comet model to derail from his comet delusions.
5 February 2018 Sol88: An irrelevant question to detail from his comet delusions.
5 February 2018 Sol88: An insane, insulting, lying rant to derail from his comet delusions
5 February 2018 Sol88: "Points already debunked" lie when he confirms derailing from his comet delusions by citing an irrelevant ices and dust paper yet again !
5 February 2018 Sol88: Lies about a Comet 17P/Holmes paper to derail from his comet delusions.
5 February 2018 Sol88: Irreverent real comet papers to derail from his comet delusions.
5 February 2018 Sol88: A lie about an irrelevant comet paper to derail from his comets delusions.
5 February 2018 Sol88: Lies about an ices and dust comet to derail from his comet delusions.
5 February 2018 Sol88: A blatant lie that W.Thornhill's prediction was just 2 flashes.
5 February 2018 Sol88: A blatant lie that Thornhill's two flashes were observed.
5 February 2018 Sol88: A lie of jonesdave116 bringing up Thornhill's flash before impact lie.
5 February 2018 Sol88: A lie about the Stardust mission which did not return any "comet samples" of a comet nucleus.
5 February 2018 Sol88: Off topic onto his cult's even more insane delusions about the Sun !

Sol88 · Feb 5, 2018

jonesdave116 said:
Am I the only one getting sick of this wilful stupidity? Hey ho. READ WHAT YOU QUOTED!!!
They are NOT using the assumption of a fluffy nucleus. That is precisely what they are not bloody saying. What do you think 515 ≤ ρ ≤1635 kg m-³ means? It means they are using a lower bound for the nucleus bulk density, and a higher bound for the densest grains found. That is, between 515 - 1635 kg/m³. What is fluffy about that? The fluffy grains were ~ < 1 kg/m³!

The mainstream are hamstrung because of the quesstimated bulk density. The highest measured dust grain density is up near 3000kgm3.

So too keep from looking like complete goose’s they’ve used 515 ≤ ρ ≤1635 kg m-³ when they should of used 515 ≤ ρ ≤3000 kg m-³.

The main source of uncertainty for shear and Young’s modulus of Layer B is the lack of information on wave path length (and thus propagation velocity) - a direct consequence of the unintended ex- cursion to Abydos. At the Agilkia site, the ROLIS decent images would fill this gap. Nevertheless, the shear modulus of Layer B is in the lower third of the variability range of snow, while its density may even exceed that of non-porous ice. This combination of properties can be ob- tained from various mixtures of snow and regolith. With the velocity uncertainty resulting from the experiment, both the snow and regolith fractions remain underconstrained, although narrower velocity bounds would result in constraints for the density (porosity) of the regolith fraction.

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 so the bulk porosity of the nucleus governs the selected range of 515 ≤ ρ ≤1635 kg m-³
This is also in line with the stardust mission findings.

When we started pulling these particles out and examining them in electron microscopes and other instruments, we found even more surprises. First of all we found evidence that the standard astronomical predictions for the origin of dust in comets, or at least the ones in this comet, appear to be incorrect. While we did find stardust grains in the cometary materials, they appear to be only a minor component, at least in the particles larger than a micrometer that were well preserved during high speed capture. This judgment is based on the concept that the isotopic composition of stardust should be different from that of typical solar system materials. This is the way that rare stardust grains have been identified in meteorites and interplanetary dust. Like in meteorites most of the components from the comet have isotopic compositions similar to Earth and are of solar system origin.

We find spectacular silicate crystals in the comet. The presence of crystals in comets was suggested by astronomical observations but the Stardust mission results provide important new insight into their origin and history. When the presence of crystals in comets and in disks of dust orbiting other stars was first observed astronomically it was a mystery because crystals are not detected in interstellar dust (the dust between stars), the building materials that are used to form solar systems and comets. Interstellar dust is composed of glassy materials with no crystalline order. The widely accepted hypothesis for the origin of cometary crystals is that they are interstellar grains that were transformed to crystals by mild warming in the vicinity of the star that they orbit.

Stardust's Big Surprise

Also backed up by GIADA’s findings

CompactGIADAparticlescanbeasso-ciatedwithWild2densemineralgrains,formingtypeAcarrot-likethintrails(e.g.,Hörzetal.2006;Rotundietal.2014),and/ortoclusterIDPscarvingtypeBbulboustrailsendinginstylustracks(e.g.,Hörzetal.2006;Rotundietal.2008).Compactanddenseparticleswithbulkdensityconstrainedintherange(1.9±1.1)×103kgm−3(Rotundietal.2015;

GIADA: shining a light on the monitoring of the comet dust production from the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko 10.1051/0004-6361/201526208

So, i’ll concede is is NOT ROCK but WELL CONSOLIDATED REFRACTORY MINERALS.

Sol88 · Feb 5, 2018

And again just so you are a least aware jd116

Alarge dust-to-water mass ratio implies that the nucleus matrix is non-volatile, so that ground-based experiments (Gr¨un et al. 1993) and thermo-physical models of cometary nuclei (Prialnik, Benkoff &Podolak 2004), assuming an ice matrix, may provide misleading results: they should be repeated assumingarefractorymatrix,which has micro-properties far from ices. The larger the dust-to-water ratio, the larger the porosity required to t the observed nucleus bulk density. The RSI (P¨atzold et al. 2016) and the CONSERT (Kofman et al. 2015) experiments exclude macro-porosity at scales above 100 m. CONSERT experiment provides a micro-porosity between 75 per cent and 85 per cent (Kofman et al. 2015). Hapke models provide a surface porosity of 87 per cent (Fornasier et al. 2015). Since most dust mass is in form of compact particles of size > 1mm(Fulleetal. 2016), a signicant fraction of the nucleus porosity must have a scale > 1 mm.

11 CONCLUSIONS The classical model of comets as dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950)has focused most models of comets on ices. The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear. With 67P’s dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside. Jean-Pierre Bibring proposes a new word naming this stuff, ‘organic(e)s’, where the modest content of ices (within brackets) well summarizes the dominant non-volatile component. Between the sizes of 0.1 and 1 mm, 99 per cent of the dust mass is in the form of compact particles, denser than the nucleus. This implies that much of the nucleus mass is in the form of mineral aggregates (silicates and suldes), so that a better denition may be ‘mineral organic(e)s’. The balanced analysis of ices, minerals and organic matter will help us to understand these objects and their origin.

Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

That 70-80% porosity is playing havoc with your reconciliation of the data being returned.

So you can do your song and dance all you’d like jd116 but the evidence is in!

Comets seem to contain more and more “dust” and less and less “ice”.

Seems your much beloved and referenced Tempel 1 interpretation maybe in error, jd116

Reality Check · Feb 5, 2018

5 February 2018: A spate of lies and delusions

Sol88 said:
The mainstream are hamstrung because of the quesstimated bulk density. ...

A spate of lies and delusions.
5 February 2018: Usual idiocy of irrelevant ices and dust papers to derail from his comet delusions.

5 February 2018: A lie that comet bulk densities are "quesstimated".

5 February 2018: The delusion that the maximum density of dust grains is the bulk density of comets made of ices and dust.

5 February 2018: The idiocy of argument by "complete goose’" insult.

5 February 2018: A lying highlight in a quote from the "near surface" paper.
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 is a paper modelling the near-surface of Comet 67P and how vibrations from MUPAS would have travelled through it as detected by SESAME/CASSE.
The "regolith fraction" of the ices and dust is in the near surface, not the bulk of the comet. The paper talks abut depths of 2 meters.

5 February 2018: Lies again about the Stardust results which show that his "comets are rocks" is a delusion.

5 February 2018: Lies that the Stardust results are a problem for the standard comet model.

5 February 2018: A lie that he has conceded his comets are rock, etc. delusions.
No sign in the last 8 years that he has understood that the Thunderbolts dogma that comets are rocks blasted from the Earth, etc. is insanely deluded and replacing "rock" with the still deluded "consolidated minerals" does not change this.
His 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, etc. etc. [/

Reality Check · Feb 5, 2018

A lie about the measured 70-80% porosity of 67P being a problem

Sol88 said:
That 70-80% porosity is playing havoc with your reconciliation of the data being returned.

5 February 2018: A lie about the measured 70-80% porosity of being is a problem.

5 February 2018: 2 lies of dust in quotes and ices in quotes when both have been detected on comets.

5 February 2018: Some gibberish about a Tempel 1 "interpretation" (his blatant lie about flashes?).

Reality Check · Feb 5, 2018

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 has sections 2.2 Ices and 2.3 Dust. These sections list the evidence that forms the basis for how the paper will model the near surface of 67P as later explained in 3.1. Model assumptions on cometary material. Things such as the upper 2 meters contain H2O ice Ih only (not amorphous H2O ice), no CO2 ice, density is >= bulk density, there is a dust component that has elastic properties "represented by lunar regolith", etc.

An interesting fact:

Both CO and CO2 are observed in situ at the Abydos landing site by Ptolemy (a gas chromatograph and mass spectrometer system on Philae), but only in gaseous form using the sniffing mode. It remains unresolved if it outgassed locally or is part of a coma, although there are hints pointing to a local origin (Morse et al., 2015).

Sol88 · Feb 5, 2018

Clueless parrot comes to mind. Hey rc?

3000kg m³ for the compact dust coming from the nucleus of which has a bulk density of 500kg m³
So therefore the comet must be highly porous!

EXCEPT for the little bit the MUPUS-PEN tapped on that was as hard as very well consolidated refractory material like that returned from the stardust mission and observed by Rosetta!

Is that your limited understanding of the situation rc?

Andy_Ross · Feb 5, 2018

So where is the missing density needed for your rock?

Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Unbanned zombie poster

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing