Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88: Cites a paper again that shows that comets are not rocks

Sol88 said:
So still deep fried ice cream!!
Click to expand...
30 November 2016 Sol88: Cites a paper again that shows that comets are not rocks as in your delusion :eek:!

Thermal and mechanical properties of the near-surface layers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko[/B]
... 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...
 
By the way, there will again be a special issue of monthly notices of the royal astronmical society (mnras) based on the Toulouse meeting, but also open for non participants, you only need to notify Matt Taylor that you plan to submit something. Deadline is 30 March 2017.

A chance for sol and his thunderdolts friends to show how a comet really works, the data is there at PSA and PDS.
 
tusenfem said:
By the way, there will again be a special issue of monthly notices of the royal astronmical society (mnras) based on the Toulouse meeting, but also open for non participants, you only need to notify Matt Taylor that you plan to submit something. Deadline is 30 March 2017.

A chance for sol and his thunderdolts friends to show how a comet really works, the data is there at PSA and PDS.
Click to expand...

Will keep an eye out for that. Cheers. I have been following the MNRAS papers from the ESLAB meeting. And got them (by fair means or foul!).

All this ice must be really taxing Wal & Dave's imagination. What can they come up with next? Given that they totally ignored the ice in the ejecta at Tempel 1, I'm assuming that they will just ignore this as well.
Going to take some serious pseudoscience contortions to get them out of this one.
No doubt, whatever they come up with will be swallowed hook, line and sinker by their fawning acolytes. Very sad. Very predictable.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Will keep an eye out for that. Cheers. I have been following the MNRAS papers from the ESLAB meeting. And got them (by fair means or foul!).

All this ice must be really taxing Wal & Dave's imagination. What can they come up with next? Given that they totally ignored the ice in the ejecta at Tempel 1, I'm assuming that they will just ignore this as well.
Going to take some serious pseudoscience contortions to get them out of this one.
No doubt, whatever they come up with will be swallowed hook, line and sinker by their fawning acolytes. Very sad. Very predictable.
Click to expand...


Seems mainstream are have a lot of trouble with the most basic question about comets, JETS!

Seems collapsing cliffs is the flavour of the month! Funny just like on Tempel 1 :blush:

Unfortunately for the mainstream JD116 statement
Going to take some serious pseudoscience contortions to get them out of this one.
Click to expand...
holds true for JETS! :rolleyes:

On the basis of our observations of the dust plumes and of the local nucleus morphology, we can infer a possible mechanism generating the outbursts. Vincent et al. (2016) has proposed receding fractured cliffs as the major process responsible for the usual dust jets seen around 67P and other comets. In this scheme, small fractures lead to enhanced inwards heat flux and acceleration of the gas in a nozzle-like structure, which form of small jets that can merge into larger feature as they expand away from the surface.
Click to expand...
Summer fireworks on comet 67P

exposing the pink unicorns that hold the trapped "ice" hidden somewhere below the deep fried crust!!

'cos in On the origin of inner coma structures observed by Rosetta during a diurnal rotation of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
The three-dimensional dust tracing analysis shows that photographed jets are often a conjunction of multiple aligned jet structures on top of a non-collimated, homogeneously released dust background
Click to expand...

So where are the nozzle-like structures? How do the non-collimated, homogeneously released dust background become collimated? how does the dust become charged and accelerate away from the nucleus?

Seems one paper contradicts another on nearly all "unexplained" cometary phenomena especially on the make up of the nucleus.


Still fun to watch the complete codswallop mainstream come up with to "save face".

Electric comet=electric sun= electric universe= Sorry Einstein :p
 
Last edited:
I think Sol is just getting confused about the type of 'jets' being discussed. The obviously collimated ones are most likely to appear from the cliffs, or from fractures elsewhere. The second type he mentions are less collimated. Essentially just general outgassing from plains. Some of those plumes will combine with others where they meet. Therefore, there should be a combination of collimated dust and less collimated dust. Which is precisely what the quote he highlights is saying. Can't see what the problem is here. Interpretation, I expect.
And then, of course, we have to ask what the EU explanation is for these jets. And what is the evidence for it? And always bearing in mind that the brightest of these jets was as 'bright' as the nucleus. That is, a surface that is very dark, and reflects only about 6% of the incident sunlight. Very dark jets. The vast majority of the dust jets are only around 10-15% of the 'brightness' of the nucleus.
Methinks Wal & Dave succumbed to pareidolia, based on contrast adjusted images. And that they really think that the jets are as bright as they appear in photos. Hence their electrical woo explanation. Some people on the Rosetta blog suffered from the same delusion. It took Matt Taylor to make an appearance, to explain that nothing brighter than the nucleus had been seen at that point in time. Not that that is impossible. I'm not sure about the measured brightness of the jets off of the small lobe of Hartley 2. However, as well as being composed of CO2, and being cold, we also know that they contained H2O ice. That would likely increase the brightness. Nowhere near enough to convince anyone even remotely knowledgable about comets that they were electrical woo, though.
 
Last edited:
exposing the pink unicorns that hold the trapped "ice" hidden somewhere below the deep fried crust!!
Click to expand...

No, just exposing the continued and deliberate ignoring of the evidence that shows that it is there. I'm getting sick to death of this unending rubbish, when it has been pointed out countless times that ice below the surface has been seen directly and indirectly.
For the five millionth time: ice was excavated from below surface by the impact at Tempel 1. 11 years ago. Ice was seen to be excavated by the CO2 jets at Hartley 2. Dirty great basketball sized pieces of it. Ice has been detected at least in the near subsurface by MIRO at 67P. Ice was detected after an outburst on 17P Holmes.

So, that means that
exposing the pink unicorns that hold the trapped "ice" hidden somewhere below the deep fried crust!!
Click to expand...

Is just deliberate lying and ignorance, probably fuelled by the knowledge that this mission has shown up the 'electric comet' to be nothing more than a neo-Velikovskian fantasy, borne of minds that struggle with basic science.
 
So where are the nozzle-like structures?
Click to expand...
Err, on the cliffs?

How do the non-collimated, homogeneously released dust background become collimated?
Click to expand...
Who said it does? The excerpt you quoted says:
The three-dimensional dust tracing analysis shows that photographed jets are often a conjunction of multiple aligned jet structures on top of a non-collimated, homogeneously released dust background
Click to expand...

how does the dust become charged?
Click to expand...
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2015/11/aa26316-15/aa26316-15.html

and accelerate away from the nucleus?
Click to expand...
Because it is entrained by the gas. Which has a velocity of ~500 m/s. Not rocket science.
 
Sol88: Lies about mainstream problems with comet jets

Sol88 said:
Seems mainstream are have a lot of trouble with the most basic question about comets, JETS!
Click to expand...
2 December 2016 Sol88: Lies about mainstream problems with comet jets.

We have in this generally incoherent rant:
  • A lie that jets have to come from "nozzle-like structures".
  • A lie about contradicting papers.
  • The crank insanity of insulting working science
  • The 8 year old delusion abut comets being rocks.
  • The insanity that the electric comet delusion and the electric sun/universe delusions from the Thunderbolts cult are any problem for SR or GR.

  1. 29 August 2016 Sol88: Repeating a lie does not make it true. You know that the electrostatic transport of dust across airless bodies is not anything to do with sublimation.
  2. The multiple lies about Static electricity may transport dust across airless planetary bodies.
  3. 29 August 2016 Sol88: A lie about data showing an electrical discharge screams your persistent delusions about comets :eye-poppi!
  4. 29 August 2016 Sol88: The stupidity of a "The effect of surface topography on the lunar photoelectron sheath and electrostatic dust transport" paper.
  5. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A lie about collimated jets since there is no such problem, e.g. they can issue from pits which any rational person knows collimates them :eek:!
  6. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A delusion that the 19 Feb. outburst issued from an area where it was impossible for it to be collimated (which it was not :eek:!).
  7. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A delusion that the Sun does not exist :D! Sunlight ionizes gas.
  8. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A delusion that a landslide possibly triggering the outburst magically makes it impossible for it to be collimated.
  9. 30 August 2016 Sol88: The delusion that an outburst described as clouds is collimated jets
  10. 30 August 2016 Sol88: Repeated delusion that electrostatic transport of dust has anything to do with his debunked delusions about comets
  11. 8 November 2016 Sol88: Still an unthinking cult follower of the Thunderbolts delusion of an electric comet.
  12. 8 November 2016 Sol88: Lies about a paper being related to jets.
  13. 8 November 2016 Sol88: An irrelevant half-lie about lightning and mainstream science.
  14. 8 November 2016 Sol88: Lies about us having to reconcile a "dust covered ice" surface and a porous "dust/ice" interior.
  15. 10 November 2016 Sol88: A "ROCK" lie and a lie abut porosity measurements.
  16. 10 November 2016 Sol88: Repeated inability to understand the words "surface" and "interior" :p!
  17. 10 November 2016 Sol88: The delusion that the rock (as in asteroids) he thinks comets are is "70%-80% Vacuum" :jaw-dropp!
  18. 11 November 2016 Sol88: A typical ignorant and irrelevant delusion - that double layers do magic.
  19. 11 November 2016 Sol88: The "a surprise and so my delusion is correct" delusion!
  20. 11 November 2016 Sol88: A comment about comet 67P in an article about comet 67P, not metallic asteroids.
  21. 15 November 2016 Sol88: Cites one of many observations that makes jets = electrical discharges into a delusion.
  22. 15 November 2016 Sol88: A lie of "He nearly said they were rock, albeit fluffy rock".
  23. 15 November 2016 Sol88: A lie by quote mining Fulle, M., et al, 2016
  24. 15 November 2016 Sol88: A lie - a delusion cannot explain anything about comets.
  25. 15 November 2016 Sol88: The delusion that cometary science stopped in 1950 with Whipple :eye-poppi!
  26. 15 November 2016 Sol88: The delusion that surface at one point = bulk = measured for one lobe properties.
  27. 15 November 2016 Sol88: Basically a lie that VIRTIS showed that 67P was rocky with a lie by quote mining.
  28. 15 November 2016 Sol88: Adds to the lie from quote mining that the Jean-Pierre Bibring proposition is comets are rocks.
  29. 15 November 2016 Sol88: Cannot comprehend what he has cited - the MUPUS experiment found an icy layer consistent with sintered ices.
  30. 15 November 2016 Sol88: A "no ice" lie that we have seen before (ice found on Temple 1 and 67P)
  31. 15 November 2016 Sol88: "5 NO DISTRIBUTED WATER SOURCES" is a fantasy since there are no problems for the mainstream in that section.
  32. 15 November 2016 Sol88: Your delusion that comets are rocks does make things that look rocky into rocks or make an ice layer into rock.
  33. 15 November 2016 Sol88: An implication that Tilman Spohn is ignorant or deluded.
  34. 29 November 2016 Sol88: A lie abut the "CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko" being about the electric comet delusion.
  35. 28 November 2016 Sol88: The delusion that "charged" and "sc potential" in a Tweet means comets are rocks or that the Tweet is about electrical discharges.
  36. 30 November 2016 Sol88: Cites a paper again that shows that comets are not rocks as in your delusion!
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 7 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
More than a year 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:
jonesdave116 said:
Err, on the cliffs?


Who said it does? The excerpt you quoted says:



http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2015/11/aa26316-15/aa26316-15.html


Because it is entrained by the gas. Which has a velocity of ~500 m/s. Not rocket science.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for the LINK to the ELECTRIC COMET

The three-dimensional dust tracing analysis shows that photographed jets are often a conjunction of multiple aligned jet structures on top of a non-collimated, homogeneously released dust background
Click to expand...

Notice the jets are NOT collimated when they leave the surface but are after a certain distance, why and how JD116?
 
Sol88 said:
cos in reality the nucleus of every comet we've visited "looks like" rock!
Click to expand...
Your delusion that comets are rocks doesn't make images of ices and dust into rock.
We have physical evidence (e.g. density) showing that comets are ices and dust and thus every image is of ices and dust.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A lie about a charged coma dust paper being about his electric comet delusion

Sol88 said:
Thanks again for the LINK to the ELECTRIC COMET
Click to expand...
2 December 2016 Sol88: A lie about a charged coma dust paper being about his electric comet delusion.
This paper is Negatively charged nano-grains at 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Abstract
Shortly after the Rosetta mission’s rendezvous with 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko the RPC/IES instrument intermittently detected negative particles that were identified as singly charged nano-dust grains. These grains were recorded as a nearly mono-energetic beam of particles in the 200−500 eV range arriving from the direction of the comet. Occasionally, another population of particles in the energy range of 1−20 keV were also noticed arriving from the approximate direction of the Sun. In this paper we review the processes that can explain the energization and the directionality of the observed nano-dust populations. We show that the observations are consistent with gas-drag acceleration of the outflowing particles with radii of 3−4 nm, and with the returning fragments of bigger particles accelerated by radiation pressure with approximate radii of 30−80 nm. In addition to gas drag and radiation pressure, we also examine the role of the solar wind induced motional electric field, and its possible role in explaining the intermittency of the detection of a nano-grain population arriving from the solar direction.
Click to expand...


This is the real world, not your delusions about comets, Sol88.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A lie by quote mining and not citing a paper that debunks your delusion

Sol88 said:
Notice the jets are NOT collimated when they leave the surface but are after a certain distance, why and how JD116?
Click to expand...
2 December 2016 Sol88: A lie by quote mining and not citing a paper that debunks your comets are rocks delusion by tracing jets to pits

On the origin of inner coma structures observed by Rosetta during a diurnal rotation of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
The Rosetta probe around comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (67P) reveals an anisotropic dust distribution of the inner coma with jet-like structures. The physical processes leading to jet formation are under debate, with most models for cometary activity focusing on localised emission sources, such as cliffs or terraced regions. Here we suggest, by correlating high-resolution simulations of the dust environment around 67P with observations, that the anisotropy and the background dust density of 67P originate from dust released across the entire sunlit surface of the nucleus rather than from few isolated sources. We trace back trajectories from coma regions with high local dust density in space to the non-spherical nucleus and identify two mechanisms of jet formation: areas with local concavity in either two dimensions or only one. Pits and craters are examples of the first case, the neck region of the bilobed nucleus of 67P for the latter one. The conjunction of multiple sources in addition to dust released from all other sunlit areas results in a high correlation coefficient (~0.8) of the predictions with observations during a complete diurnal rotation period of 67P.
Click to expand...
This is a paper that debunks your comets are rocks delusion by tracing jets to pits.
What you quote is one sentence in the conclusion.

Cannot understand that jets are not spelt background :eek:!
Actually the usual abysmal ignorance and denial of comets leads to a fantasy that "a non-collimated, homogeneously released dust background " magically becomes "a conjunction of multiple aligned jet structures".
If you bothered to try to read the paper the you would know that the terms "primary jets" and "homogeneous emission background" are two different things. You could even just look at
Fig. 1.— Dust trajectories above concave areas. Homogeneously seeded dust particles are entrenched and accelerated by outflowing gas within the outer mantle. Concavely shaped surface areas lead to the collimation of dust.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well...
Finally, electric fields are also generated near the boundaries of lit-dark regions where differential charging can result in surprisingly intense, but very small-scale surface electric fields pointing from the lit towards the unlit regions (Wang et al. 2007). The evaluation of these “terminator” fields remains difficult without understanding the large- and small-scale topography of the nucleus. However, the dedicated search by the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) found no evidence of small particles lofted above the lunar terminator regions (Horanyi et al. 2015).
Click to expand...

except THEY DID FIND EVIDENCE

Mmmmmm.....
 
Reality Check said:
2 December 2016 Sol88: A lie by quote mining and not citing a paper that debunks your comets are rocks delusion by tracing jets to pits

On the origin of inner coma structures observed by Rosetta during a diurnal rotation of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

This is a paper that debunks your comets are rocks delusion by tracing jets to pits.
What you quote is one sentence in the conclusion.

Cannot understand that jets are not spelt background :eek:!
Actually the usual abysmal ignorance and denial of comets leads to a fantasy that "a non-collimated, homogeneously released dust background " magically becomes "a conjunction of multiple aligned jet structures".
The first is dust being blown off the entre surface, including flat surfaces, forming a background. It may even include the dust from pits and cliff cracks that is not collimated.
The second is the additional feature of dust jets traced to "fractures and subsurface pores".
If you bothered to try to read the paper the you would know that the terms "primary jets" and "homogeneous emission background" are two different things.
Click to expand...

Like you have an idea :rolleyes:

Not even sure if you can think independently RC
 
Sol88 said:
Well...

except THEY DID FIND EVIDENCE

Mmmmmm.....
Click to expand...

And your point is? This has nothing to do with EU ideas. It is perfectly mainstream, and has been for a long time. Here is an abstract of a paper from 1963 (!) which discusses it: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103562900118
I think that if you read T & T's 2006 poster, you'll find that they are talking about far more dramatic electrical woo, than this perfectly mainstream mechanism. Electric discharges causing the jets, et stupid cetera.
 
Abstract
Shortly after the Rosetta mission’s rendezvous with 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko the RPC/IES instrument intermittently detected negative particles that were identified as singly charged nano-dust grains. These grains were recorded as a nearly mono-energetic beam of particles in the 200−500 eV range arriving from the direction of the comet. Occasionally, another population of particles in the energy range of 1−20 keV were also noticed arriving from the approximate direction of the Sun. In this paper we review the processes that can explain the energization and the directionality of the observed nano-dust populations. We show that the observations are consistent with gas-drag acceleration of the outflowing particles with radii of 3−4 nm, and with the returning fragments of bigger particles accelerated by radiation pressure with approximate radii of 30−80 nm. In addition to gas drag and radiation pressure, we also examine the role of the solar wind induced motional electric field, and its possible role in explaining the intermittency of the detection of a nano-grain population arriving from the solar direction.
Click to expand...

What about the
Finally, electric fields are also generated near the boundaries of lit-dark regions where differential charging can result in surprisingly intense, but very small-scale surface electric fields pointing from the lit towards the unlit regions (Wang et al. 2007). The evaluation of these “terminator” fields remains difficult without understanding the large- and small-scale topography of the nucleus.
Click to expand...
in conjunction and coupled to the SW electric field...Mmmmmmm


Yeah nah, the sun gets down into cracks and crevices some unknown distance under the surface, gently warming the "water ice" which we see as "jets" and at times can explosively release water

hay if say if fast enough and for long enough, it almost sounds plausible!
 
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