Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jrrarglblarg said:
What am I looking at? I see a dot with a red ring around it. Is that one of your Electic Sharpshooter Fallacy circles?
Click to expand...

no that's the OSIRIS image of comet 67P

Guili says:
03/08/2015 at 16:32

"After a nominal period of 6 months, the scientific data themselves are to be delivered to ESA to be placed in the public domain via the Planetary Science Archive (PSA) for use by all scientists and the wider public. In practice, it was agreed to deliver data to ESA for release in blocks, and the first of those blocks was defined as the ‘pre-landing phase’, i.e. covering the period from January 2014 to just after Philae’s landing on the comet in mid-November 2014."

Yet somehow, Osiris images delivered today stop in June 2014. Let's call them underwhelming and uninteresting, to stay polite: a white dot on a grey background....

Why is that ?
Click to expand...


How much more science to be done? they are JUST pictures which I am told count for diddly squat....


Just one picture (actual a couple because of exposure) of a standing wall or cliff driving the jets and I'm done....Holger Sierks?
 
I'm pretty sure the scientists think they have the science under control and don't need to release images to you, personally, or to any other pareidolia-wielding numpty, to get the science done.
 
Sol88 said:
no that's the OSIRIS image of comet 67P




How much more science to be done? they are JUST pictures which I am told count for diddly squat....


Just one picture (actual a couple because of exposure) of a standing wall or cliff driving the jets and I'm done....Holger Sierks?
Click to expand...

What is this idiotic obsession with cliffs about? You have far bigger problems than that. Such as not a scrap of evidence to support this lunatic idea you subscribe to. For what it's worth:
"Interestingly, and as also observed by Deep Impact, most of the jets could be traced back to an apparently eroding terraced scarp that surrounds the smoothed terrain. This activity indicates that the scarp is actively eroding..............the height of one terraced scarp was determined to be 50m, and it was found that the scarp morphology at the boundaries varies across the surface. Some scarp edges were found to be sharp, some were concave, some were terraced, and others were scalloped...........Comparison of images taken by Deep Impact with images from Stardust-NExT revealed significant changes in the morphology along one scarp of a smooth terrain; in at least two places, this scarp receded by up to 50m during the cometary year between 2005 and 2011."
http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-3527412816.html

"Scalloped" and "concave" surfaces would probably fit the bill for forming jets, as indeed would any surface that wasn't completely smooth, but had constraints, like ridges within the scarp. This wouldn't constrain the gas, but would collimate the dust, which is mostly what we are seeing.

I suggest you also read that in conjunction with "Geologic control of jet formation on Comet 103P/Hartley 2"
http://planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/4623.pdf

The people who write this stuff have probably forgotten more about comets than Thornhill and Talbott ever knew.
 
Sol88 said:
so why the statement?

Still looks like YOUR problem!

And while we're at it, what are the boulders on 67P made out of?
Click to expand...

For Christ's sake I just explained that with a direct quote from the full paper!
Again: ""The presence of fractures on the surface potentially formed by thermal insolation weathering may indicate considerable compositional and structural heterogeneity. Alternatively, it may indicate the presence of thin dusty coatings overlying materials of higher thermal inertia and ability to fracture."

And what do you think the boulders are made of, given the brightness they display? Chalk? No, sorry, even that is denser than 0.47g cm^3.
And the onus isn't on mainstream science. This is a well evidenced theory. YOU are the one with the nutty alternate hypothesis. As somebody once said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
So far, not only do you not have any extraordinary evidence, you don't have any evidence whatsoever. Therefore it is a non-starter. On the same level as homeopathy and astrology. Woo. Bunkum. Crackpot science. Call it what you will, all of those terms are justified.

ETA; Actually, I just realised that the quote I referenced was from the poster presentation. Still stands as to what the "significant implications" refer to, though.
The full paper also mentions: "On Earth and other planetary bodies such as Mars, the presence of thermal contraction polygons is a strong indicator of the presence of subsurface ice [e.g., French, 2007, and references therein]. While most of the polygonal fractures observed on the surface of 67P exhibit patterns that are highly irregular, there are some fractures that display orthogonal intersections. Furthermore, there are indications of smaller embedded polygons similar to periglacial high-centered polygons. The presence of seasonal thermal contraction polygons would suggest the presence of (1) near-subsurface ice and, by consequence, (2) high thermal inertia regions."
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
NO once again you imply ice, sintered ice, as the strongly consolidated material but Philea is hard up against your sintered ice and well no sublimation that i've read about happening there!

in fact the only place so far is "CLIFFS ARE DRIVING THE ACTIVITY" SO IT'S ALL DUST AND SINTERED ICE then??


Seems mainstream contradict themselves quite a bit followed up by


but who cares, eh!
Click to expand...

So whether it comes from surface or subsurface ice is kind of irrelevant. It's ice. Maybe they should have worded it as "surface and subsurface ice". Big deal. It's H2O. Your problem is; what is it doing there? How did it get there? Why have they seen it from 0-~ 500m with MIRO? Why did Philae find it within a metre?
And I've seen nothing to suggest that the area where Philae landed isn't sublimating. As just mentioned, it sniffed out H20 within a metre of the surface. No electrical activity seen or detected. No gargantuan increase in the solar wind to account for it (which would have killed the lander).

Perhaps this would be a good time to present the mountain of evidence in favour of ECT that this mission hasn't provided?
I'll do it for you, save you the time....................................there we go, that didn't take long.
 
Sol88 said:
NO once again you imply ice, sintered ice, as the strongly consolidated material but Philea is hard up against your sintered ice and well no sublimation that i've read about happening there!
Click to expand...

This from the human who doesn't know what plow walls are or how snow that is plowed becomes very hard, is often covered with gravel in the spring. And in parking lots can be found to be very hard with embedded carts and other sundry materials.

Now the fact that there is a shopping cart on the surface of the snow mound means that there is no ice in the mound.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
There are people who have not been taught
There are people who refuse to be taught
There are people who cannot be taught
and sadly, there are people who, for one reason or another, cannot learn.
 
rwguinn said:
There are people who have not been taught
There are people who refuse to be taught
There are people who cannot be taught
and sadly, there are people who, for one reason or another, cannot learn.
Click to expand...

I'm not in the least bit religious. However, Amen brother.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
This from the human who doesn't know what plow walls are or how snow that is plowed becomes very hard, is often covered with gravel in the spring. And in parking lots can be found to be very hard with embedded carts and other sundry materials.

Now the fact that there is a shopping cart on the surface of the snow mound means that there is no ice in the mound.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha that's rich sport, you have obliviously never seen the ROCK form that resemble the ridges and scarps on a comets (and moons, asteroids and planets)

I live in a place where there everywhere and beat your snow plows hands down

Took this just the other day upriver!

http://i59.tinypic.com/112g4qw.jpg
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
There are people who have not been taught
There are people who refuse to be taught
There are people who cannot be taught
and sadly, there are people who, for one reason or another, cannot learn.
Click to expand...

and the last kind, those that think outside the indoctrination of modern teaching and ask questions!
 
Sol88 said:
...snipped delusion...
Click to expand...
So you repeat the delusion that you can see rocks in comet images, Sol88.

That pretty but idiotic picture just emphasizes that you remain ignorant about he properties of ice. As stated before the tensile strength of ice can exceed that measured by MUPUS.

No point in actually citing this fact for you since 28 July 2015 Sol88: You are too obsessed with your delusion that comets are rocks to ever accept any explanation for anything from anyone.
 
Sol88 said:
and the last kind, those that think outside the indoctrination of modern teaching and ask questions!
Click to expand...
There are people who have not been taught
There are people who refuse to be taught
There are people who cannot be taught
and sadly, there are people who, for one reason or another, cannot learn. One of these reasons is the delusion that the modern teaching of science is indoctrination :eye-poppi.

I would say that you fall into the second camp, Sol88.
6 years of refusing to learn about the measured densities of comets.
6 years of refusing to learn other basic facts about comets such as electrical discharges have never been observed on them.
6 years of being fooled by the ignorance, delusions and lies of the Thunderbolts cranks.
43 days and counting of being afraid of doing simple physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
 
Last edited:
Celebrating a year at the comet
ESA’s Rosetta mission today celebrates one year at Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, with its closest approach to the Sun now just one week away.

It’s been a long but exciting journey for Rosetta since its launch in 2004, featuring Earth, Mars and two asteroid flybys before arriving at its ultimate destination on 6 August 2014. Over the following months, the mission became the first ever to orbit a comet and the first to soft land a probe – Philae – on its surface.
Click to expand...
 
Science on the surface of a comet from 30 July 2015
Early results from Philae’s first suite of scientific observations of Comet 67P/Churyumov*-Gerasimenko were published today in a special edition of the journal Science.
Click to expand...
has some good science not mentioned here.
One thing is that the bounces were actually good because they gave a opportunity to compare sites
Some 80% of the first science sequence was completed in the 64 hours following separation before Philae fell into hibernation, with the unexpected bonus that data were ultimately collected at more than one location, allowing comparisons between the touchdown sites.
Click to expand...
and since MUPUS has been mentioned:
The MUPUS suite of instruments provided insight into the physical properties of Abydos. Its penetrating ‘hammer’ showed the surface and subsurface material sampled to be substantially harder than that at Agilkia, as inferred from the mechanical analysis of the first landing.
The results point to a thin layer of dust less than 3 cm thick overlying a much harder compacted mixture of dust and ice at Abydos. At Agilkia, this harder layer may well exist at a greater depth than that encountered by Philae.
Click to expand...
(something else for Sol88 not to learn!)
and
Moving below the surface, unique information concerning the global interior structure of the comet was provided by CONSERT, which passed radio waves through the nucleus between the lander and the orbiter. The results show that the small lobe of the comet is consistent with a very loosely compacted (porosity 75–85%) mixture of dust and ice (dust-to-ice ratio 0.4–2.6 by volume) that is fairly homogeneous on the scale of tens of metres.
Click to expand...
About 6 times more ice than dust. A porosity that is a bit less than pumice (average of 90%)
Where is Sol88's delusion about rock :eek:
 
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