Originally Posted by
jonesdave116
Another idiotic post, sidestepping the obvious failure of the electric comet woo. They detect water. The amount Patzold (who is likely wrong) calls for, is still waaaaay more than you can explain. In fact, you cannot explain a single millilitre of it, let alone hundreds of thousands to millions of tonnes of it. Deal with that, yes? YOU. CANNOT. EXPLAIN. IT. Clear?
What a joker.
Quote:
Then the Haser model
Thought we had been there and done that! way way over estimated the "ice"
Same as Sunshine, Volwerk et al
and
the real kicker
Quote:
The integrated mass of the dust particles is much bigger than is the mass of the liberated water (dust-to-ice ratio>1).
So your mainstream assumption are completely out. leading to way overestimation of "ice".
as Patzold says
Quote:
It seems that the lost gas mass was overestimated by the instruments.
So,
Quote:
The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice.
The RSI does not lie, so I've been informed.
Seems
Quote:
Finally, we would recommend caution, based on these re
sults, when attempting correlative studies (models or other Rosetta datasets such as dust jets) with MIRO derived col umn densities (or production rates), assuming that they orig inate from the location of the MIRO footprint
Three-dimensional analysis of spatial resolution of MIRO/Rosetta measurements at 67P/Churyumov-Gersimenko
You my friend have based your whole shebang on assumptions!
Sorry, let alone hundreds of thousands to millions of tonnes of ice is a complete load of assumptions.
As A'Hearn reckons comets are mostly not ice.