Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you think a Comet is made of rock then I suppose a big hollow cavern is the only way you can get the density down.
 
Reality Check said:
No, Sol88, I an stating that you are totally deluded about comets and are making up fairy stories about "caverns".


So much ignorance and craziness in one small post, Sol88 :jaw-dropp!
  1. Philae bounced a few times because of the low gravity and a hard subsurface.
  2. Philae ended up at a fairy random location and measured a minimum tensile strength of the ice there using the MUPUS hammer.
    That means that it is likely that all of the ice below the surface dust is around that tensile strength.
  3. There is no need of delusional "large voids" to account for the porosity of 67P.
    All you need is the fluffy grains that have been detected or space between grains.
    [*]We have measured that one node of 67P is a more or less homogeneous mix of ices and dust (without any crazy quotes).
  4. The measurement of the porosity of that node has nothing to do with the surface structure which has been known for months before the CONSORT results.
  5. First detection of molecular oxygen at a comet
    The presence of O2 is not accounted for in your delusions.
It would be extremely stupid to think that the results showing that comets including 67P are made of ices and dust ("dirtysnowball" for the simple minded) shows that comets are not made of ices and dust.

Just so I understand where you are coming from, Soll88, are you going to persist in the delusions that comets are rocks, etc. even when you know about the real world of comets. My guess is the answer is yes:
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 6 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly cited by Haig.
236 days and counting of fear of doing basic 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.
Click to expand...
[*]We have measured that one node of 67P is a more or less homogeneous mix of ices and dust (without any crazy quotes)....It would be extremely stupid to think that the results showing that comets including 67P are made of ices and dust ("dirtysnowball" for the simple minded) shows that comets are not made of ices and dust.
Click to expand...
You do not make sense, RC.

So your more of a fluffydustball sorta bloke then?

The images sent back so far DO NOT suggest a fluffydustyiceyball. Cracking, stratification, pits and cliffs are not reconcilable with what is being observed.

Seems YOUR biggest problem is reconciling the data with what you KNOW comets are
Comets are known to be a mixture of dust and ice, and if fully compact, they would be heavier than water. However, previous measurements have shown that some of them have extremely low densities, much lower than that of water ice. The low density implies that comets must be highly porous.
Click to expand...

So you Houston, we you have a problem :D
 
Last edited:
No Sol, you just don't get it. The dust itself is porous. There is no electric woo going on. The density has now been figured to be 533 kg/m^3. That is due to the shape model being refined once the southern hemisphere was illuminated.
Perhaps you'd like to run us through the evidence to show that this is an electric comet just one more time?
Start with Gromit's predictions, and then we'll see how they are getting on. Yes?
Tip: Not very well, is the answer to that.
 
Oh dear, Sol. Density is LOWER than ice? That must make it rock then, surely? Shall I link to Wallace & Gromit's definition of what a comet is? Nah......think it's already dead on its arse by now. Got anything scientific that we ought to be looking at?
 
jonesdave116 said:
Oh dear, Sol. Density is LOWER than ice? That must make it rock then, surely? Shall I link to Wallace & Gromit's definition of what a comet is? Nah......think it's already dead on its arse by now. Got anything scientific that we ought to be looking at?
Click to expand...

Sure thing, JD116 :thumbsup:

Let's take the "jets" again. You start.

Show me the peer reviewed paper/s on the mechanism on how the "jets" are produced and sustained on a comet.

This is will be a hoot! :D
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
You do not make sense, RC.
Click to expand...
I make more sense that a follower of the deluded Thunderbolts cult who has the insane idea that he can look at an image of a comet and tell what it is made of, Sol88.

I am a "do not fall for the obvious insanity of cranks on the internet" kind of guy :jaw-dropp!

Seems YOUR biggest problem remains as over 6 years of relying on lies, ignorance, fantasies and delusions rather than learning about the real world. You add another lie about yet another measurement that comets have a density less water that of water: Inside Rosetta’s comet
There are no large caverns inside Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. ESA’s Rosetta mission has made measurements that clearly demonstrate this, solving a long-standing mystery.

Comets are the icy remnants left over from the formation of the planets 4.6 billion years ago. A total of eight comets have now been visited by spacecraft and, thanks to these missions, we have built up a picture of the basic properties of these cosmic time capsules. While some questions have been answered, others have been raised.

Comets are known to be a mixture of dust and ice, and if fully compact, they would be heavier than water. However, previous measurements have shown that some of them have extremely low densities, much lower than that of water ice. The low density implies that comets must be highly porous.

But is the porosity because of huge empty caves in the comet’s interior or it is a more homogeneous low-density structure?

In a new study, published in this week’s issue of the journal Nature, a team led by Martin Pätzold, from Rheinische Institut für Umweltforschung an der Universität zu Köln, Germany, have shown that Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is also a low-density object, but they have also been able to rule out a cavernous interior.
Click to expand...


The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 6 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly cited by Haig.
236 days and counting of fear of doing basic 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:
Sol88 said:
Let's take the "jets" again. You start.
Click to expand...
jonesdave116 - let us not fall for Sol88's instance about being ignorant about comets as shown by the fact that he is admitting to have being ignorant about comet jets for over 6 years now.
This is the Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2) thread, so I have reported that post as off topic.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
No, Sol88, I an stating that you are totally deluded about comets and are making up fairy stories about "caverns".


So much ignorance and craziness in one small post, Sol88 :jaw-dropp!
  1. Philae bounced a few times because of the low gravity and a hard subsurface.
  2. Philae ended up at a fairy random location and measured a minimum tensile strength of the ice there using the MUPUS hammer.
    That means that it is likely that all of the ice below the surface dust is around that tensile strength.
  3. There is no need of delusional "large voids" to account for the porosity of 67P.
    All you need is the fluffy grains that have been detected or space between grains.
  4. We have measured that one node of 67P is a more or less homogeneous mix of ices and dust (without any crazy quotes).
  5. The measurement of the porosity of that node has nothing to do with the surface structure which has been known for months before the CONSORT results.
  6. First detection of molecular oxygen at a comet
    The presence of O2 is not accounted for in your delusions.
It would be extremely stupid to think that the results showing that comets including 67P are made of ices and dust ("dirtysnowball" for the simple minded) shows that comets are not made of ices and dust.

Just so I understand where you are coming from, Soll88, are you going to persist in the delusions that comets are rocks, etc. even when you know about the real world of comets. My guess is the answer is yes:
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 6 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly cited by Haig.
236 days and counting of fear of doing basic 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.
Click to expand...

You do know, don't you RC, that the dust you talk about contains clays, olivine, forsterite, carbonates and silicates
The discovery of carbonates “creates problems one way or another,” he says. But if the mixing theory is true, “it would rewrite how we think about the solar nebula”.
Click to expand...

Expected from rock excavated from a planetary surface.

Oh, lets throw the oxygen chestnut again, just for good measure!
The find came as a "big surprise", and challenges mainstream theories on the formation of our Solar System, said scientist Andre Bieler of the University of Michigan.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-10-rosetta-molecular-oxygen-comet-67p.html#jCp
Click to expand...

Please explain, RC!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
You do know, don't you RC, that the dust you talk about contains clays, olivine, forsterite, carbonates and silicates
Click to expand...
That is a lie, Sol88, since I have known for years that the dust contains clays, olivine, forsterite, carbonates, silicates, etc. as not expected from rock excavated from a planetary surface.
No granite :eye-poppi.
No limestone :eye-poppi.
No fossils :D.
The irrelevant topic of the detection of O2 has already been explained several times (even in your citation!) so I have reported your post as "An off topic question that is explained by what he cites so an attempt to waste peoples time.".
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
That is a lie, Sol88, since I have known for years that the dust contains clays, olivine, forsterite, carbonates, silicates, etc. as not expected from rock excavated from a planetary surface.
No granite :eye-poppi.
No limestone :eye-poppi.
No fossils :D.
The irrelevant topic of the detection of O2 has already been explained several times (even in your citation!) so I have reported your post as "An off topic question that is explained by what he cites so an attempt to waste peoples time.".
Click to expand...


Whoo boy, in RC's bad books again! :blush:

Point is though, none of those minerals should have ANY place on a comet according to the mainstream!
 
Spritzer sees Olivine in gas surrounding forming stars.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer20110526.html

The crystals are in the form of forsterite. They belong to the olivine family of silicate minerals...
The findings might also explain why comets, which form in the frigid outskirts of our solar system contain the same type of crystals.
Click to expand...

No excavation from a planet needed for olivine
 
Sol88 said:
Sure thing, JD116 :thumbsup:

Let's take the "jets" again. You start.

Show me the peer reviewed paper/s on the mechanism on how the "jets" are produced and sustained on a comet.

This is will be a hoot! :D
Click to expand...

Which jets are you talking about? Type 1; general jetting from flattish areas (i.e. fan shaped); type 2; more collimated, generally coming from rougher terrain; or type 3; highly collimated jets as seen around perihelion at 67P?

First off, explain what it is that you don't understand about the mechanism. Secondly, explain what you think it is that you are actually seeing (is it gas, or is it dust?). Thirdly, explain, preferably with the use of an equation, what you think the expansion velocity of H2O gas should be into vacuum.
 
Sol88 said:
Whoo boy, in RC's bad books again! :blush:
Click to expand...
That is wrong, Sol88, the repeat of lies, ignorance and delusions over the last 6 years means that you are a permanently in my bad book :jaw-dropp!

The point is that you are still lying :eye-poppi.
Your "clays, olivine, forsterite, carbonates, silicates, etc." are expected in comets. Comets are made of ices and dust. The dust comes from the formation of the Solar System. So the dust has the same composition as other remains of the solar system, i.e. asteroids.

The usual point about how deluded the insanity that comets are rocks blasted from planets in recent times is:
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 6 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly cited by Haig.
237 days and counting of fear of doing basic 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.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
No excavation from a planet needed for olivine
Click to expand...
The lie Sol88 is spouting again is that clays, olivine, forsterite, carbonates and silicates can only come from planets and so supports his delusion that comets are rocks blasted from planets in recent times. There is little point in trying to address such a persistent lie (a year old?).

A minute of research gives that clays are present in asteroids.
A search of the thread gives your post on 30th April 2015 Captain_Swoop: Mg-rich olivine has also been discovered falling into infant stars

Looking back at the previous thread suggests that this is a continuation of his 9th January 2015 delusion that the detection of dust that included, clays, carbonates and crystallised silicates in Deep Impact ejecta is the detection of rock.
That post also contains a lie. Wal Thornhill predicted that there would be a flash before impact and one on impact. Sol88 lies about this being just 2 flashes. In the real world there were a flash on impact and a flash after impact. Wal Thornhill lies abut this being a confirmed prediction. So the lie from Sol88 is not unexpected from a person blindly following the delusions of a cult :D!
 
I know but the lie has to be addressed every time he tries ti bring it back up.
He seems to think we won't remember.
 
Reality Check said:
It seems more that Sol88 does not care that we know that he is lying or at least blindly parroting lies from the Thunderbolts cult.
Click to expand...

Yep.Bless 'im, Sol does do a lot of those things. However, why would he know about the solid ice grains excavated at Tempel 1? Why should he know about the H2O solid ice grains entrained within CO2 jets at Hartley 2?
It's not like the liars and shysters that came up with this nonsense have ever spelled it out for them. Is it?
Shame that they never come on here and explain their woo. Eh?
 
jonesdave116 said:
Which jets are you talking about? Type 1; general jetting from flattish areas (i.e. fan shaped); type 2; more collimated, generally coming from rougher terrain; or type 3; highly collimated jets as seen around perihelion at 67P?

First off, explain what it is that you don't understand about the mechanism. Secondly, explain what you think it is that you are actually seeing (is it gas, or is it dust?). Thirdly, explain, preferably with the use of an equation, what you think the expansion velocity of H2O gas should be into vacuum.
Click to expand...

Cool, lets go for the Type 3 Explosively released highly collimated jets as seen around perihelion at 67P?

How are they do YOU think they formed?

Remembering what was being discussed about the latest finding
Comets are known to be a mixture of dust and ice, and if fully compact, they would be heavier than water. However, previous measurements have shown that some of them have extremely low densities, much lower than that of water ice. The low density implies that comets must be highly porous.
Click to expand...

Oh, and just because it gets up everyone's nose, the implication they are highly porous must include clays, olivine, forsterite, carbonates, silicates, all the volatiles, etc
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
That is wrong, Sol88, the repeat of lies, ignorance and delusions over the last 6 years means that you are a permanently in my bad book :jaw-dropp!

The point is that you are still lying :eye-poppi.
Your "clays, olivine, forsterite, carbonates, silicates, etc." are expected in comets. Comets are made of ices and dust. The dust comes from the formation of the Solar System. So the dust has the same composition as other remains of the solar system, i.e. asteroids.

The usual point about how deluded the insanity that comets are rocks blasted from planets in recent times is:
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 6 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly cited by Haig.
237 days and counting of fear of doing basic 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.
Click to expand...


The point is that you are still lying :eye-poppi.
Your "clays, olivine, forsterite, carbonates, silicates, etc." are expected in comets. Comets are made of ices and dust. The dust comes from the formation of the Solar System. So the dust has the same composition as other remains of the solar system, i.e. asteroids.
Click to expand...
:clap:

So just a question of "ices" then RC?
 
Last edited:
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