Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
No you are right again RC!

You think the Rosetta mob would be expecting to see ice, everywhere and that ice would be brighter than the dark albedo surrounds and here you have the proof of bright patches on the surface of 67P.

But the silence is deafening! :o

Seems 67P does not want to play nicely! I'm still having trouble how your subsurface chambers can generate the required pressure from ice below a well insulated surface into a highly porous interior and shoot jets out at 700 ms!!! not to mention the diffuse area that the jets DO seem to emanate from.

Now just to find the ice, surface or subsurface... :eusa_whistle:
 
This OSIRIS narrow-angle camera image shows part of a large fracture running through the Hapi region in Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko’s neck. At the location of the right arrow, the fracture appears as a chain of pits. This image has been resized to 40% of the original image release (which appears to have been enlarged by 500%).
Click to expand...
LINK

chain of pits??? like a crater chain??

Like here

and

Here

and here
 
Sol88 said:
No you are right again RC!
Click to expand...
Thank you Sol88 but repeating what looks like Thunderbolts delusions about what they imagine scientists to believe remains bad.

The Rosetta mission has found ice everywhere - the interior of 67P is made of dust and ice and is emitting water!

Where Thunderbolts are delusional is forgetting about the layer of surface dust that has been detected.

Where you join in the delusion is "I see bunnies in the cloud" logic + a repeat of the demonstrated inability to interpret astronomy images with your I see ice that actual astronomers in the Rosetta mission do not mention :jaw-dropp!

Argument from ignorance or incredibility is not good either, Sol88. Wow - 700 m/s is a really big number :eek:
Wow - you do not want actually read a textbook, paper, etc. describing comet jets!

The repeated lie about not finding subsurface ice on 67P
* the measured density of 67P means that it has to be made of ices and dust, i.e. subsurface ice has been found.
* we see gas from ices in the jets, there is no surface ice thus there has to be subsurface ices :eek:
 
Sol88 said:
LINK

chain of pits??? like a crater chain??
Click to expand...
Wrong, Sol88: Chain of pits like a series of pits in a line :jaw-dropp!
They are unlikely to be an impact crater chain as is frequently seen on moons since there are few known impact craters on 67P:
At last! A slew of OSIRIS images shows fascinating landscapes on Rosetta's comet
Take this round depression, one of the few examples of possible impact craters on the comet. The 35-meter crater appears to be covered by airfall material with a depth of 1 to 5 meters (based on standard depth-to-diameter ratios for craters), according to the morphology paper.
Click to expand...

In this case we have: This OSIRIS narrow-angle camera image shows part of a large fracture running through the Hapi region in Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko’s neck. At the location of the right arrow, the fracture appears as a chain of pits. This image has been resized to 40% of the original image release (which appears to have been enlarged by 500%).
IMO this could be a fracture along which outgassing has happened and formed pits.

ETA: You do not even need a visible fracture:
Latest Research Reveals a Bizarre and Vibrant Rosetta’s Comet
Look closely to the upper left and lower right of G and you’ll spot a chain of depressions likely caused by ice sublimating from beneath the surface.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ETA: You do not even need a visible fracture:
Latest Research Reveals a Bizarre and Vibrant Rosetta’s Comet

Look closely to the upper left and lower right of G and you’ll spot a chain of depressions likely caused by ice sublimating from beneath the surface.
Click to expand...

Just need to find the ICE Reality Check, then you may have a leg to stand on, otherwise your ad hoc explanations are just parroting the dogma comets are made of ice and dust with ALL the SURPRISES and UNEXPECTED findings so far...which were correctly predicted by the ELECTRIC COMET THEORY!!!

And it's hilarious watching you try and explain mainstreams pink unicorns and dust bunnies as actual science FACT.

Seems pretty clear mainstream have NO idea how to interpret the data! always just hidden out sight, just a little deeper or more resolution required.

No ICE, No deepfriedicecream comet!
 
Reality Check said:
No, Sol88 - we know that you are incapable of knowing what you see in astronomy images from your pervious bad attempts to do so. So you noticing anything correctly is highly improbable.
Comet flyby: OSIRIS catches glimpse of Rosetta’s shadow
Notice absolutely no mention of ice at the blog, Sol88!
Notice bright spots on the surface of 67P, Sol88.

Notice that it is a (Thunderbolts?) lie to say that scientists expect to see ice in OSIRIS images now that they have evidence that the surface of 67P is covered in dust :jaw-dropp!

The ignorance of depending on descriptive terms rather than science with "dirtydeepfriedicecream" confirmed.

Yes, Sol88, a mixture of dust and ices is "rocky-like stuff" especially in low gravity when they can more easily adhere.
Click to expand...

The grandest of the consolidated surfaces – the fifth type of terrain – is Hathor, a towering 2,950-foot (900 meter) cliff that dominates the underside of the comet’s duck-like head. Its distinctive linear features, which run both up and down and across for much of its height, reveal brighter material that suggests we’re seeing the internal structure of the comet’s head. Tucked along an alcove on the cliff are additional bright white spots less than 30 feet (10-m) across that may be patches of sublimating ice.
Click to expand...

Ice everywhere RC!! well maybe ice because there is no other option! Well there is but it is not to be spoken of :rolleyes:

Like me 'ol mate Holger's statement
“It’s rocky-like stuff, but not rock.”
Click to expand...
:mgduh
 
Sol88 said:
Just need to find the ICE Reality Check
Click to expand...
Just need to get rid of the delusions that
* ICE has not been found, Sol88 :jaw-dropp!
* science is dogma
* electric comets is anything but a delusion
* "pink unicorns and dust bunnies" show your great intellectual powers , Sol88 :p
 
Sol88 agrees that there is no rock seen on 67P

Sol88 said:
Ice everywhere RC!!...more gibberish...
Click to expand...
Yes, Sol88, a comet made of ices and dust has ice everywhere :p!

There is no solid rock as you quoted Holger Sierks saying:
Holger Sierks said, “Higher strength material that was a surprise to us.” “With this picture of dust falling back to the surface forming high porosity layers, we failed to explain the rebounds.” “It’s rocky-like stuff, but not rock.” “We also see this stuff shining through where the dust layer is wiped away or fallen off following the gravitational field and exposing a higher-strength material and this is something we could consider be the reason for the rebound.”
Click to expand...

Sol88 agrees that there is no rock detected on 67P by quoting Holger Sierks stating that there was no rock :eye-poppi!
 
Just for the record, SOL88 believes his eyes and see's solid rock and NO ice.

Just as the Thunderbolts team predicted!!
Surface geology

Thornhill: The model predicts a sculpted surface, distinguished by sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges - the opposite of the softened relief expected of a sublimating "dirty snowball". (A chunk of ice melting in the Sun loses its sharp relief, just like a scoop of melting ice cream.)
see [ 2005 July 03]
Click to expand...
LINK

One surprise, according to Nicolas Thomas, of Switzerland's University of Bern, lead author of one of the papers, is that the surface of comet 67P looks plenty lumpy. "Rosetta has blown that concept apart," he says.
"We have smooth surfaces—we don't know how they formed. We have brittle, crumbly material. We have material that looks like rock." There are even rippled features that look like sand dunes. "I don't think anyone had even imagined something like that," says Thomas.
The conventional wisdom had been that escaping gases sculpt comets as they close in on the sun. But Thomas wonders, "Can you really produce those various features from that one process?"
Click to expand...
LINK

mainstream are the ones in trouble with the density measurements not the EU, surprise after surprise for the mainstream! :)

Philae confirmed it's hardness WHEN ALL 3 systems designed to anchor it to an ICEY surface failed (or were not used) and bounced of a hard surface into a very rocky looking cliff!!

So you can bang on all you want at how clever the mission planners were and how marvelous a technical achievement it was to put a probe around a comet...but for three systems to fail??? Mmmm.......just say'n.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Just for the record, SOL88 believes his eyes and see's solid rock and NO ice.
Click to expand...

There are people on this forum who see Bigfoot in photos of shadowy trees. Guess Bigfoot must be real, based on your assertion here.
 
Tolls said:
There are people on this forum who see Bigfoot in photos of shadowy trees. Guess Bigfoot must be real, based on your assertion here.
Click to expand...

Been there done that, you prove to me Bigfoot doesn't exist!

Anyhoo looks like rock, hard like Rock and sample returned of rock...

Your problem to work out your maths error in the "measured" density.
 
Sol88 said:
Oh, I'm sorry. You have an explanation for Hexagonal Crater formation?? :confused:

let rip cobber, we are all ears :cool:
Click to expand...

A few ideas springs to mind. No one electrical. You know, some cultures, probably yours, enjoy epostracism (stone skipping). Mine likes to draw interference patterns on water by dropping stones at the same time. I'm sure I could get a twelve-year old to show you how a hexagon is made.

But don't worry, I'm just here occasionally to enjoy epistemological hedonism at work, laugh a bit and study its ways. Think of me as a Dian Fossey who enjoys to monkey around with her creatures now and then. I know it's methodologically wrong, but, what the heck, it's JREF IS.
 
I find it annoying that Haig, when pressed for a specific answer to a specific question, vanishes from the thread to be replaced by Sol88 gibbering on about utterly different things. I was so hoping the EW proponents would be capable of forming a cogent response to what seems a simple but important question.
 
Sol88 said:
Anyhoo looks like rock, hard like Rock and sample returned of rock...

Your problem to work out your maths error in the "measured" density.
Click to expand...


I guess it's to be expected that one so disdainful of science and scientists would fail to distinguish between two of the most basic concepts of physics. That sound you hear, Sol, is the collective facepalm slap of seventh grade science students all over the planet.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
I find it annoying that Haig, when pressed for a specific answer to a specific question, vanishes from the thread to be replaced by Sol88 gibbering on about utterly different things. I was so hoping the EW proponents would be capable of forming a cogent response to what seems a simple but important question.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's the cogent response. Salespeople have to sell whatever they have to sell. Sales would be easy if they had always fine goods to offer.

Besides, nobody here wants the electric comet theory to be utterly disproved. The debate is what keeps the fun coming.
 
Sol88 said:
Just for the record, SOL88 believes his eyes and see's solid rock and NO ice.
...
Click to expand...
Just for the record, that makes Sol88 continuing to be very ignorant, Sol88 :p.
There is no way from just looking at an image of a comet what a comet is made of.
* You need to know enough to not blindly deny the existing valid science that shows that the density of comets is ~0.6 g/cc.
* You need to know that the measured density of 67P is 0.4 g/cc.
* You have to know that Philae landed in dust and so that image you are looking at is mostly dust (maybe some non-dusty surfaces on cliffs but not guaranteed on a comet with its low gravity).
* You have to know that images of objects are not images of the interiors of objects!
Also you have to be smart enough not to trust the delusions about comets on a crank web site that is lying to you. The Thunderbolts team lied about their predictions :doh:!
EC proponents trust a web site that lies to its readers about "confirmed" predictions: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
If you are not smart enough to see that you are being lied to in print then how can you believe your eyes?

You are lying about the "mainstream are the ones in trouble with the density measurements". The Thunderbolts prediction for comets is ~3.0 g/cc (solid rock). The measured density of 67P is 0.4 g/cc. It is the Thunderbolts team who are beyond in trouble.

There is no measurement of densities in your citation but there is:
Rosetta Spacecraft, First to Orbit Comet, Finds Surprises Aplenty
• Most of the water vapor coming from ice below 67P's surface came initially from the comet's "neck."
Click to expand...

You are wrong about Philae bouncing off a hard surface - Philae bounced of a dusty surface that was harder than expected. This surface was easily penetrated by MUPUS - it is not "hard". It is not rock!
Philae settles in dust-covered ice

The mission planners were clever :p!
It is a marvelous technical achievement to put a spacecraft in orbit around a comet :p!
It is a marvelous technical achievement that only 2 (harpoons and ice screws) of lots of 20 year old technology failed after 20 years in space and then being activated around a comet :jaw-dropp!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Your problem to work out your maths error in the "measured" density.
Click to expand...
Actually, Sol88: Your problem is making up fairy stories about math errors in the measured density of comets including 67P.

Our problem was expecting you to learn how comet densities are measured after 5 and a half years (from 6th July 2009) of denying basic science in preference for the ignorance, lies and delusions on a web site and in videos.
This no longer an expectation (at least from me) :p.

The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom