Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Repeated "evolving toward mostly rock" lie to emphasize his electric comet insanity

Sol88 said:
Anyway your now evolving toward mostly rock!
Click to expand...
15 October 2018: Repeated "evolving toward mostly rock" lie to emphasize his electric comet insanity.

We are evolving towards ices and dust comets being made of more dust than ices.

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

Sol88 said:
YOUR problem now is the bulk density.
Click to expand...
15 October 2018: "YOUR problem now is the bulk density" insanity when that is HIS problem.

We have 68 years of measured bulk densities of comets being < water which is much less than rock and one of many physical facts about comets that make his electric comet insane.

Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity
 
More "deep fried ice cream model" lies to derail from his electric comet insanity

Sol88 said:
Sorry rc didn’t read the deep fried ice cream model too well, it’s CRYSTALLINE ICE on top NOT refractory material... my bad.
Click to expand...
15 October 2018: Repeats a "deep fried ice cream model" lie to derail from his electric comet insanity.

It is a lie that there is a new "deep fried ice cream model". There is the old mainstream comet model that has always included a "fried" crust.

Why Comets Are Like Deep Fried Ice Cream

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

Sol88 said:
How good is this dust at insulating the “ices” from sublimating? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
15 October 2018: Back to his insulating dust delusion to derail from his electric comet insanity.

The surface of a comet does not insulate the interior. A different surface composition can slow down the heat transfer to the interior.

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

Sol88 said:
How good is this dust at insulating the “ices” from sublimating? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
15 October 2018: Back to his "ices" in quotes lie to derail form his electric comet insanity.

We have detected actual ice on comets and he has been told that many times

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

Sol88 said:
Like A’Hearn said EVOLVING toward MOSTLY ROCK...not mostly ice.
Click to expand...
15 October 2018: Repeats his insane insult of A’Hearn, emphasizing his electric comet insanity.

He is accusing a dead astronomer (Michael A'Hearn) of being insane enough to think that comets are actual rock when the context is comets made of ices and dust. The "rock" is material with more dust than ices.

Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
15 October 2018: Repeats his insane insult of A’Hearn, emphasizing his electric comet insanity.

He is accusing a dead astronomer (Michael A'Hearn) of being insane enough to think that comets are actual rock when the context is comets made of ices and dust. The "rock" is material with more dust than ices.

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


What did M.A’Hearn mean then champ? :D

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the rst quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4]
Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn[\i]
Click to expand...


insane enough to think that comets are actual rock when the context is comets made of ices and dust. The "rock" is material with more dust than ices.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A lying question to derail from his electric comet insanity

Sol88 said:
What did M.A’Hearn mean then champ? :D
Click to expand...
15 October 2018: A lying question to derail from his electric comet insanity.

Explained in what he replied to.
15 October 2018: Repeats his insane insult of A’Hearn, emphasizing his electric comet insanity.

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

+ a repeated abysmal insult of Michael A’Hearn
 
Last edited:
At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the rst quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited.
Click to expand...

Comets are made of dust with some ice?

In actual fact comets are mostly nothing (85% Porosity) with the other 15% Mostly DUST with the remainder ice???

The 'ol chestnut of the false dichotomy i.e the dirtysnowball model is wrong so therfore the ELECTRIC COMET model must be correct!!

NooBs!

What is really happening is the DIRTYSNOWBALL (Whipple 1950's model) is wrong and mainstream have NO alternative!

But at least mainstream, or a least Micheal A'Hearn understanding of cometary nuclei is evolving...toward ROCK.

Sol88 tucks and rolls before reality check confabulates A'Hearn's statement, quoted again below for prosperity

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the rst quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4]
Comets: looking ahead
Click to expand...
Michael F. A’Hearn
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Comets are made of dust with some ice?

In actual fact comets are mostly nothing (85% Porosity) with the other 15% Mostly DUST with the remainder ice???

The 'ol chestnut of the false dichotomy i.e the dirtysnowball model is wrong so therfore the ELECTRIC COMET model must be correct!!

NooBs!

What is really happening is the DIRTYSNOWBALL (Whipple 1950's model) is wrong and mainstream have NO alternative!

But at least mainstream, or a least Micheal A'Hearn understanding of cometary nuclei is evolving...toward ROCK.

Sol88 tucks and rolls before reality check confabulates A'Hearn's statement, quoted again below for prosperity

Michael F. A’Hearn
Click to expand...

Wrong. There is no rock. Show the evidence if you think otherwise. Dust, seen. Ice, seen. Rock, not seen. There were plenty of instruments that would have seen it, and didn't. So where is it. Please link to the detections.
 
Sol88 said:
Well either you or A’Hearn are wrong...
Click to expand...

Nope. Mike A'Hearn knew very well what comets are composed of. His paper was merely a piece written to summarise talks given at a meeting at The Royal Society. It was an unfortunate choice of words, but he wasn't to know that there are fruitloops who actually believe that comets are solid rock! A'Hearn was PI of the Tempel 1 mission, so was well aware that comets are not solid rock. I suspect the papers from that meeting were probably not peer reviewed, being just essentially a conference, where brief summations were presented. Had they been so, then I imagine the offending word would have been replaced by 'dust', or 'refractory dust', or some such.
If it were possible, I'd email him for clarification, but that is slightly problematic.
To summarise; all the instruments that would have detected any indication of rock failed to do so. This was not unexpected, given the impact at Tempel 1, 13 years ago. Nobody in the cometary science community expected to find solid rock. The only person expecting this was you, and the idiot Thornhill, despite that premise being murdered pitilessly by the Tempel 1 impact.
Of course, if your faith demands that thou shalt believe the comet is rock, as dictated by the Electric Grand Poobah, then so be it. Who are we to dictate a person's religious beliefs?
 
Last edited:
A stupid question and usual stupidity to derail from his electric comet insanity

Sol88 said:
Comets are made of dust with some ice?...
Click to expand...
16 October 2018: A stupid question and usual stupidity and insanity to derail from his electric comet insanity.

The fact that comets are made of dust and ices with high porosity (he has "85% Porosity" :eek:) does not support his insanity of solid rock.
Usual stupidity and insanity:
  1. The mainstream model of comets is not wrong.
  2. His electric comet insanity includes the stupidity of the fallacy of false dichotomy.
    Regardless of the validity of the mainstream comet model, insane delusions with no evidence are always wrong.
  3. Argument by insult yet again.
  4. Insane lie that there is no mainstream model when he has been citing papers using that model for years :jaw-dropp!
  5. Insane insult of Michael A'Hearn now recorded for prosperity (see below).
Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity.
A repeated insane insult of Michael A’Hearn.
 
Last edited:
Usual insane insult of A’Hearn who was sane and did not state that comets are rocks

Sol88 said:
Well either you or A’Hearn are wrong...
Click to expand...
16 October 2018: Repeats an insane insult of Michael A’Hearn who was knowledgeable, sane and did not state that comets are actual rocks.

About 70 years of empirical evidence says that comets are made of ices and dust. Michael A’Hearn was an astronomer studying comets and knew that. He used "rock" meaning material made of ices and dust, dust dominating. If there was no evidence that dust dominated then he may have written ice.
Michael Francis A'Hearn (November 17, 1940 – May 29, 2017) was an American astronomer and astronomy professor at the University of Maryland College of Computer, Mathematical, and Natural Sciences.[1] He was also the principal investigator for NASA's EPOXI mission.

He received his B.A. in science at Boston College and his Ph.D. in Astronomy at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He was the principal investigator for the NASA Deep Impact mission. He aided in the development of systems for surveying abundances in comets as well as techniques for determining the sizes of cometary nuclei which uses optical and infrared measurements.
Click to expand...

Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity.
A repeated insane insult of Michael A’Hearn.
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
Nope. Mike A'Hearn knew very well what comets are composed of. His paper was merely a piece written to summarise talks given at a meeting at The Royal Society. It was an unfortunate choice of words, but he wasn't to know that there are fruitloops who actually believe that comets are solid rock! A'Hearn was PI of the Tempel 1 mission, so was well aware that comets are not solid rock. I suspect the papers from that meeting were probably not peer reviewed, being just essentially a conference, where brief summations were presented. Had they been so, then I imagine the offending word would have been replaced by 'dust', or 'refractory dust', or some such.
If it were possible, I'd email him for clarification, but that is slightly problematic.
To summarise; all the instruments that would have detected any indication of rock failed to do so. This was not unexpected, given the impact at Tempel 1, 13 years ago. Nobody in the cometary science community expected to find solid rock. The only person expecting this was you, and the idiot Thornhill, despite that premise being murdered pitilessly by the Tempel 1 impact.
Of course, if your faith demands that thou shalt believe the comet is rock, as dictated by the Electric Grand Poobah, then so be it. Who are we to dictate a person's religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

My bold.

Excactly! :thumbsup:

‘Cos you know no one expected
Both the thermal inertia and the strength on the surface of 67P are larger than commonly thought.
Click to expand...

Thelack of progress into the subsurface can be interpreted as being caused by a near-surface layer of a strength the PEN was not capable of penetrating.
Click to expand...

we conclude that the material must have provided a resistance to penetration by the PEN of more than 4 MPa, which is equivalent to a uniaxial compressive strength of the material of about 2 MPa.
Click to expand...

(the stronger upward movements interpreted as recoil).
Click to expand...
Thermal and mechanical properties of the near-surface layers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

So yup 85% porous ice with some dust??? The dirtysnowball model!!!

But now it’s the deep fried ice cream model :D

But over in the real world...

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

Dust dust dust...high temperature CHARGED REFRACTORY “dust”!!!


Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity
abstract We have investigated through simulation the electrostatic charging of the nucleus of Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko during periods of weak outgassing activity. Specifically, we have modeled the surface potential and electric field at the surface of the nucleus during the initial Rosetta rendezvous at 3.5 AU and the release of the Philae lander at 3 AU. We have also investigated the possibility of dust acceleration and ejection above the nucleus due to electrostatic forces. Finally, we discuss these modeling results in the context of possible observations by instruments on both the Rosetta orbiter and the Philae lander.
Click to expand...

‘Cos you know...

Conclusions. In the framework of the presented model, which can be considered common in terms of assumptions and physical parameters in the cometary community, the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism. The sublimation of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding to 1.3 AU. Awayoutof this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.
Click to expand...
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Most common model??? Dirtysnowball or deep fried ice cream?

But don’t just take my word for it Matt Taylor also does a Spock...

consolidated material with no boulders or fine material. Here consolidated is used to refer to areas that appear rocky in appearance and are cohesive enough to display lineaments and fractures.
Click to expand...
The Rosetta mission orbiter Science overview – the comet phase

Hell even old mate had a go..
Our mapping reveals strong latitudinal dependences for emplaced units and a highly heterogeneous surface. Layered bedrock units that represent the exposed nucleus of 67P/C-G are dominant at southern latitudes, while topographically smooth, dust covered regions dominate the Northern hemisphere
Click to expand...
Geomorphology of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

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

Unfortunate use of words????

;)
 
Last edited:
Both the thermal inertia and the strength on the surface of 67P are larger than commonly thought.
Click to expand...

Quit with the obfuscation, woo boy. What is the thermal inertia of common rocks? What was measured at the comet? Frankly, I am getting sick to death of this poster constantly lying and obfuscating. Is there anything we can do?
 
The lack of progress into the subsurface can be interpreted as being caused by a near-surface layer of a strength the PEN was not capable of penetrating.
Click to expand...

And what was the estimated strength of that layer, woo boy? Stop cherry picking (i.e. lying).
 
we conclude that the material must have provided a resistance to penetration by the PEN of more than 4 MPa, which is equivalent to a uniaxial compressive strength of the material of about 2 MPa.
Click to expand...

Link to the paper woo boy. What is the equivalent for rock? Quit with the lying, yes?
 
@The liar Sol88,
Tell you what, liar, why don't I just go through the literature, and expose your cherry picking for the pathetic lies that they are? You lost. Get over it woo boy. Sad creature.
 
Are you implying all those PEER REVIEWED MAINSTREAM PAPERS are wrong? Or just misusing words ‘cos it’s easier to say rock than we’ll consolidated refractory material?

Looks like it to this LIAR! :D

The Deep Impact experiment on comet Tempel-1 yielded initially an extremely low (“effective”) strength (<65 Pa) (7), raising questions as to whether a comet lander could land on such weak material. Experimental work on the aerodynamic (i.e., tensile?) strength of meteoroids (5), as well as particles collected by Stardust in the coma of comet 81P/Wild 2 (6), also indicated a strength range of 3 to 80 kPa on the submillimeter-to-centimeter scale. The landings of Philae, despite not proceeding as planned, provide direct observations of the surface mechanical properties and thus a baseline for comparison with these previous studies.
Click to expand...

And a cherry pick
The two sites Agilkia and Abydos are situated in two different morphological regions: very likely in Ma’at and Bastet. Whereas the Ma’at region appears to be covered by a smooth “dust” layer (15, 23) with a brittle underlayer, Bastet is described as an exposed consolidated surface with minimal bouldering, possibly part of the basal unit. The size distribution of the regolith at Ma’at is now constrained by ROLIS data as still granular at 0.9 cm/pixel and is interpreted as “airfall” (15). Both morphological descriptions are consistent with our observations.
Click to expand...

Ouch!

4Mpa lower limit for 67P?
 
Last edited:
A’Hearn Part of the Deep Impact experiment, you said jd116?

Wonder why he would have used those unfortunate words at some conference?

Or

He’s on the money! The mainstreams understanding is EVOLVING toward MOSTLY ROCK!

Or do have trouble simply saying Whipple’s may be wrong because he did not have the FULL set of data now offered by Rosetta to be the CORRECT MODEL?

:cool:
 
Looks like a delusion that not expecting rock = cannot detect rock

Sol88 said:
My bold. ...
Click to expand...
16 October 2018: Looks like a delusion that not expecting rock = cannot detect rock.

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

Sol88 said:
Are you implying all those PEER REVIEWED MAINSTREAM PAPERS are wrong? ...
Click to expand...
16 October 2018: Persistent stupidity that "rock" in ices and comet papers is actual rock.

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

Sol88 said:
A’Hearn Part of the Deep Impact experiment, you said jd116?
Click to expand...
16 October 2018: Stupidity that A’Hearn using standard terms is "unfortunate words".
Really stupid because he is the one citing the use of geology terms such as rock in papers about comets made of ices and dust :jaw-dropp.

A obscure bunch of insane cranks using the word rock does not mean that rational people cannot use the word rock.

We have a mixture of ices and dust with high porosity in a low gravity environment. That mixture does not exist n Earth. We want a name for it. So we use terms like rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc. keeping in mind that that they are not actual rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc.

16 October 2018: Repeats an insane insult of Michael A’Hearn who was knowledgeable, sane and did not state that comets are actual rocks.
Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity.
A repeated insane insult of Michael A’Hearn.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
16 October 2018: Stupidity that A’Hearn using standard terms is "unfortunate words".
Really stupid because he is the one citing the use of geology terms such as rock in papers about comets made of ices and dust :jaw-dropp.

A obscure bunch of insane cranks using the word rock does not mean that rational people cannot use the word rock.

We have a mixture of ices and dust with high porosity in a low gravity environment. That mixture does not exist n Earth. We want a name for it. So we use terms like rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc. keeping in mind that that they are not actual rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc.

16 October 2018: Repeats an insane insult of Michael A’Hearn who was knowledgeable, sane and did not state that comets are actual rocks.
Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity.
A repeated insane insult of Michael A’Hearn.
Click to expand...


We have a mixture of ices and dust with high porosity in a low gravity environment. That mixture does not exist n Earth. We want a name for it. So we use terms like rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc. keeping in mind that that they are not actual rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc.
Click to expand...

So ROCK then RC?
 
A deluded "So ROCK then RC" lie to derail form his electric comet insanity

Sol88 said:
So ROCK then RC?
Click to expand...
16 October 2018: A deluded "So ROCK then RC" lie to derail form his electric comet insanity.
Deluded because he has 9 years of my position that the evidence is comets are ices and dust, not his ROCK electric comet insanity.

Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity.
A repeated insane insult of Michael A’Hearn.
 
Reality Check said:
Another spate of ~258 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion, derails, insults, and lies from 27 July 2018 to 10 October 2018
Click to expand...
Another spate of ~273 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion, derails, insults, and lies from 27 July 2018 to 16 October 2018
 
cool so we are all calling it ROCK then?

So the electric field centred on the rocky nucleus (, keeping in mind that that they are not actual rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc.) maybe strong enough to release dust from the surface?

What ya reckon rc?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
A’Hearn Part of the Deep Impact experiment, you said jd116?

Wonder why he would have used those unfortunate words at some conference?

Or

He’s on the money! The mainstreams understanding is EVOLVING toward MOSTLY ROCK!

Or do have trouble simply saying Whipple’s may be wrong because he did not have the FULL set of data now offered by Rosetta to be the CORRECT MODEL?

:cool:
Click to expand...


What rock? Show me in the data where rock was detected, or shut up. Yes?
 
Are you implying all those PEER REVIEWED MAINSTREAM PAPERS are wrong? Or just misusing words ‘cos it’s easier to say rock than we’ll consolidated refractory material?
Click to expand...

Quit lying. I could link a shed load of papers (and have done) from various instruments that show definitively that it isn't rock. You, on the other hand, cannot link a single one that says that it is. As I said, quit with the lying. No rock, no electric discharges. The electric comet lunacy is well and truly dead. In fact, as it was scientifically impossible, it was never alive, except in what counts for the brains of a handful of neo-Velikovskian nutjobs.
 
Sol88 said:
cool so we are all calling it ROCK then?

So the electric field centred on the rocky nucleus (, keeping in mind that that they are not actual rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc.) maybe strong enough to release dust from the surface?

What ya reckon rc?
Click to expand...
Are you abandoning the idea that comets are made of solid rock for the idea that they are made predominantly out of dust?
 
steenkh said:
Are you abandoning the idea that comets are made of solid rock for the idea that they are made predominantly out of dust?
Click to expand...

No, I also call rock, rock!

Now, we all call the nucleus rock. :D

Not actual rock, pseudo rock.

Hard like rock, looks like rock , taste like rock but not actual rock.
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
Quit lying. I could link a shed load of papers (and have done) from various instruments that show definitively that it isn't rock. You, on the other hand, cannot link a single one that says that it is. As I said, quit with the lying. No rock, no electric discharges. The electric comet lunacy is well and truly dead. In fact, as it was scientifically impossible, it was never alive, except in what counts for the brains of a handful of neo-Velikovskian nutjobs.
Click to expand...

Enlighten us ‘o great one...

Which is specifically the scientifically impossibility?

:rolleyes:

Don’t embarrass yourself.
 
Sol88 said:
No, I also call rock, rock!

Now, we all call the nucleus rock. :D

Not actual rock.
Click to expand...

Nope, no rock. Not a single instrument, as well as an impact, has ever seen rock at a comet. Zero rock. I'm struggling to understand the mindset of somebody who believes that there is rock, given all the evidence to the contrary. Baffling. Must be a religious type thing.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Nope, no rock. Not a single instrument, as well as an impact, has ever seen rock at a comet. Zero rock. I'm struggling to understand the mindset of somebody who believes that there is rock, given all the evidence to the contrary. Baffling. Must be a religious type thing.
Click to expand...

Cool cool as long as you are evolving your understanding that comets are mostly rock.

:jaw-dropp

Not actual rock... but
keeping in mind that that they are not actual rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Enlighten us ‘o great one...

Which is specifically the scientifically impossibility?

:rolleyes:

Don’t embarrass yourself.
Click to expand...

EDM! (lol). Try that for a start. Now, that is embarrassing!
Rock! Density is wrong, Tempel 1 impact showed it isn't rock.
Jets as discharges! Already known to be cold, neutral gas and dust and, sometimes, ice.

All this known before the Rosetta mission reached 67P. Ergo, your religious beliefs were already an impossibility. Faith keeps you going, given the total lack of evidence to back up your puerile woo.
 
Subsurface properties and early activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Gulkis, S. et al.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6220/aaa0709

A low thermal inertia (~10 to 50 J K–1 m–2 s–0.5), consistent with a thermally insulating powdered surface, is inferred.
Click to expand...

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

Thus, a σT value of a few pascals is a good estimate for the tensile strength of the 67P nucleus material, although further analysis of dynamic stresses, such as those caused by cometary activity and rotation changes, is warranted.
Click to expand...

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

See Table 1.

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

The surface strength on comet 67P has been investigated in localized areas and values published in several papers. For instance, Vincent et al. (2015b) constrained the strength of material surrounding active pits, interpreted as sink holes; Groussin (2015) measured the strength of stable overhangs in selected areas of the comet; Biele et al. (2015) and Spohn et al. (2015) computed local strength, respectively, from the Philae lander bounce on Agilkia and the MUPUS measurements at Abydos. All authors agree on a typical tensile strength in the range 10–100 Pa, and a compressive strength in the kPa range for the dusty layer, up to a couple of MPa for the underlying consolidated material.
Click to expand...

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

The resulting TI values from both instruments are broadly consistent with each other. From the millimetre channel on
MIRO, we determine the TI in the subsurface to be <80 JK−1 m−2 s−0.5 for the Seth, Ash, and Aten regions. The submillimetre channel implies similar results but also suggests that higher values could be possible. A low TI is consistent with other MIRO measurements and in situ data from the MUPUS instrument at the final landing site of Philae. The VIRTIS results give a best fitting value of 80 JK−1 m−2 s−0.5 and values in the range 40-160 JK−1 m−2 s−0.5.
Click to expand...

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

The surface emissivity was 0.97, and the local thermal inertia was 85 ± 35 J m−2 K−1 s-1/2. The MUPUS thermal probe did not fully penetrate the near-surface layers, suggesting a local resistance of the ground to penetration of >4 megapascals, equivalent to >2 megapascal uniaxial compressive strength. A sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65% is consistent with the data.
Click to expand...

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

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

Properties of the 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko interior revealed by CONSERT radar
Kofman, W. et al.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6247/aab0639

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

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

And this;

https://gpg.geosci.xyz/content/phys...mittivity_rocks.html#table-permittivity-rocks

And this;

https://gpg.geosci.xyz/content/phys...y_sediments.html#table-permittivity-sediments

And this;

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

And this;

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


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


Together, these observations indicate that the DI excavation crater diameter was about 200 m (±20 m), a value consistent with the ejected mass derived from Earth- and space-based observations with the assumption that this mass represents only 10–20% of the total ejected mass.
Click to expand...

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


In summary, there is not a single shred of evidence for rock, and an absolute shed load that says that it isn't. Therefore, anybody who is suggesting it is rock is either lying, scientifically illiterate, or brainwashed by neo-Velikoskian con artists. Or a combination of all three.
 
Last edited:
An insane lie that anyone here is stupid enough to think comets are actual rock

Sol88 said:
cool so we are all calling it ROCK then?
Click to expand...
17 October 2018: An insane lie that anyone here is stupid enough to think comets are actual rock.
We have been telling him for 9 years that we agree that comets are ices and dust and have the physical evidence to support this, e.g. their densities.

Sometimes astronomers label that ices and dust material rock and he goes crazy about that, e.g. 15 October 2018: Repeats his insane insult of A’Hearn, emphasizing his electric comet insanity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom