Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88: Lies about SAFIRE which is not a experiment on comets

Lying abut Ignorant electric universe "experiments" and actual science .
11 January 2017 Sol88: Lies about SAFIRE which is not a experiment on comets (a deluded attempt to model solar activity as electrical discharges).

11 January 2017 Sol88: Lies about Charged particle signatures of the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (no electrical discharges on comets)

11 January 2017 Sol88: Lies about CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko which is not about electrical discharges on comets.

11 January 2017 Sol88: The Electric Universe stupidity of "scientists were surprised and so our delusions are supported"!
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A lie abut "no viable mechanism from the mainstream on the formation of "jets"

Oh and still no viable mechanism from the mainstream on the formation of "jets" :p
11 January 2017 Sol88: A lie abut "no viable mechanism from the mainstream on the formation of "jets"" (even with a smilie)
 
Sol88: The irrelevant delusion that science stopped in 1755

11 January 2017 Sol88: The irrelevant delusion that science (the theory of planetary system formation) stopped in 1755 :eek:!

11 January 2017 Sol88: An irrelevant lie of "You do not know how the solar system formed".
The scientific evidence is that the modern nebular hypothesis is correct, e.g. because we have seen the stages of planetary systems forming from collapsing molecular clouds to planets clearing their orbits.

11 January 2017 Sol88: Repeats that delusion that comets are rock because he imagines that they are ROCK!
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Irrelevant papers cited - no electrical discharges on comets

11 January 2017 Sol88: Irrelevant papers cited - no electrical discharges on comets (the electric comet delusion).

11 January 2017 Sol88: Insulting a poster with a "more simplified description" when it is very simple that the Moon is not a comet :jaw-dropp!

11 January 2017 Sol88: A lie that "Holger Sierks has seen but will not release the pictures" because images release is not under any single person;s control.
The policy on image release was set up probably before the Rosetta mission was even launched.

11 January 2017 Sol88: A lie that a 4 second YouTube GIF contains pictures that Holger Sierks would not release because obviously the GIF was created from released pictures :jaw-dropp!
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A'Hearn et, al. know that grains are accelerated by sublimating gases

11 January 2017 Sol88: A'Hearn et, al. know that dust grains are accelerated by sublimating gases.

The subject of Acceleration of individual, decimetre-sized aggregates in the lower coma of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko is not dusty plasma.
 
Sol88: A display of lack of reading comprehension of a 1991 paper

An Experimental Study of the Sublimation of Water Ice and the Release of Trapped Gases
Whoops ...
11 January 2017 Sol88: A display of lack of reading comprehension of a 1991 paper.
There was an assumption in pre 1991 (26 years ago :eye-poppi!) models that "gases are released from a comet's nucleus continuously, starting at each gas's sublimation temperature". The experiment showed that this assumption was incorrect.
 
Just say'n
Just saying what?

That you do not know that the Rosetta spacecraft was launched on 2 March 2004 (12 years before this 2014 paper)?
Comets formed in solar-nebula instabilities! -- An experimental and modeling attempt to relate the activity of comets to their formation process

That you remain deluded that the MUPUS instrument was hammered into rock?
Estimating the strength of the nucleus material of comet 67P Churyumov–Gerasimenko
Noticeable penetration of the tester probe was not achieved that led to estimation of the minimum compressive strength of the material to be ⩾4 MPa4 This fairly high strength appears to indicate the presence of highly porous ice with grains “frozen” at contacts.
 
So just the usual from Sol88 over the Xmas and New Year break:
  1. 11 January 2017 Sol88: A lie of "lack of sensible mechanism" for comet jets.
  2. 11 January 2017 Sol88: Lies about SAFIRE which is not a experiment on comets (a deluded attempt to model solar activity as electrical discharges).
  3. 11 January 2017 Sol88: Lies about Charged particle signatures of the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (no electrical discharges on comets)
  4. 11 January 2017 Sol88: Lies about CME impact on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko which is not about electrical discharges on comets.
  5. 11 January 2017 Sol88: The Electric Universe stupidity of "scientists were surprised and so our delusions are supported"!
  6. 11 January 2017 Sol88: The delusion that the Sun is a comet (water molecules detected in sunspots)?
  7. 11 January 2017 Sol88: A lie abut "no viable mechanism from the mainstream on the formation of "jets"" (even with a smilie)
  8. 11 January 2017 Sol88: Irrelevant papers cited - no electrical discharges on comets (the electric comet delusion).
  9. 11 January 2017 Sol88: Insulting a poster with a "more simplified description" when it is very simple that the Moon is not a comet :eye-poppi!
  10. 11 January 2017 Sol88: A lie that "Holger Sierks has seen but will not release the pictures" because images release is not under any single person;s control.
  11. 11 January 2017 Sol88: A lie that a 4 second YouTube GIF contains pictures that Holger Sierks would not release because obviously the GIF was created from released pictures :jaw-dropp!
  12. 11 January 2017 Sol88: A'Hearn et, al. know that dust grains are accelerated by sublimating gases. No electric comet delusion need apply.
  13. 11 January 2017 Sol88: A display of lack of reading comprehension of a 1991 paper.
  14. 11 January 2017 Sol88: The delusion that the Moon is a comet and comets have "soil"!
  15. 11 January 2017 Sol88: An irrelevant paper cited yet again - no electric comet delusion of electrical discharges in this paper.
60 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 12 December 2016 (maybe hundreds more in the last 7 years!)


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:
Giggle giggle snort :D

Redistribution of particles across the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

And you think the Electric comet is bunk'm ... giggle giggle snort, wipes tears from his eyes!

got you mob stumped, ay!

Variegation of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in regions showing activity

Abstract

Aims.We carried out an investigation of the surface variegation of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, the detection of regions showing activity, the determination of active and inactive surface regions of the comet with spectral methods, and the detection of fallback material.

Methods. We analyzed multispectral data generated with Optical, Spectroscopic, and Infrared Remote Imaging System (OSIRIS) narrow angle camera (NAC) observations via spectral techniques, reflectance ratios, and spectral slopes in order to study active regions. We applied clustering analysis to the results of the reflectance ratios, and introduced the new technique of activity thresholds to detect areas potentially enriched in volatiles.

Results. Local color inhomogeneities are detected over the investigated surface regions. Active regions, such as Hapi, the active pits of Seth and Ma’at, the clustered and isolated bright features in Imhotep, the alcoves in Seth and Ma’at, and the large alcove in Anuket, have bluer spectra than the overall surface. The spectra generated with OSIRIS NAC observations are dominated by cometary emissions of around 700 nm to 750 nm as a result of the coma between the comet’s surface and the camera. One of the two isolated bright features in the Imhotep region displays an absorption band of around 700 nm, which probably indicates the existence of hydrated silicates. An absorption band with a center between 800–900 nm is tentatively observed in some regions of the nucleus surface. This absorption band can be explained by the crystal field absorption of Fe2+, which is a common spectral feature seen in silicates.
Any one got a copy I might be able to dig into a little further?

Bluer spectra = "ice" yeah??? :rolf:
Furthermore, they were found to be bluer in colour at visible wavelengths compared with the redder background, consistent with an icy component.

“Water ice is the most plausible explanation for the occurrence and properties of these features,” says Antoine Pommerol of the University of Bern and lead author of the study.

most plausible explanation, giggle giggle snort...well it's all you've got it's all you've got, ay. You don't know what you don't know
 
Last edited:
11 January 2017 Sol88: An irrelevant paper cited yet again - no electric comet delusion of electrical discharges in this paper.

Nice list RC!

See post above.

One day, I'm sure, your the left half of your brain will link up to your right half :)
 
Last edited:
Bluer spectra = "ice" yeah??? :rolf:

Err, yes. Given that the areas showing the bluest spectra have been investigated on many occasions, and been shown unambiguously to contain ice, then I'd say ice is a good bet, wouldn't you?
Remember all that stuff that was excavated at Tempel 1? And all those lovely pictures of snowballs around Hartley 2? Any guesses as to what that was? No need to guess - it wasn't a disaster for the interplanetary division of the Medellin cartel, it was a substance composed of two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen. That is, ice.
As the authors say:
Detection of water ice by VIRTIS-M on the clustered bright feature we studied (Filacchione et al. 2015) supports our interpretation for the bluer spectral regions we investigated

As reported previously in:
The diurnal cycle of water ice on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
De Sanctis, M. C. et al
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...erasimenko/links/568fa2b808aef987e56af009.pdf

and;

Detection of exposed H2O ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as observed by Rosetta OSIRIS and VIRTIS instruments
Barucci, M. A. et al
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.00551.pdf

and;

Exposed water ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
Filacchione, G. et al
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7586/abs/nature16190.html

and;

Seasonal exposure of carbon dioxide ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Filacchione, G. et al
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/11/16/science.aag3161

I could go on, but it would get boring and repetitive. You get the drift. Don't forget, we already knew there was ice at comets prior to this mission, as seen at the aforementioned comets Tempel 1 and Hartley 2. Neither of those findings have ever been addressed by Wallace & Gromit. Unsurprisingly.
 
Last edited:
Giggle giggle snort :D

Redistribution of particles across the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

And you think the Electric comet is bunk'm ... giggle giggle snort, wipes tears from his eyes!

got you mob stumped, ay!

Variegation of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in regions showing activity

Any one got a copy I might be able to dig into a little further?

Bluer spectra = "ice" yeah??? :rolf:

most plausible explanation, giggle giggle snort...well it's all you've got it's all you've got, ay. You don't know what you don't know


What are you taking from this?
Mention of Silicates means Comets are rock?
Give me a clue.
 
What are you taking from this?
Mention of Silicates means Comets are rock?
Give me a clue.

I think that about sums it up. Some bloke, who may or may not have a bachelors degree in science, and some other bloke with a penchant for misinterpreting mythology, have decided that Velikovsky was pretty much right, and want to use comets as the basis for their 'Thunderbolts of the Gods' BS.
Various other people, equally ignorant of science, have decided to follow them, and believe that they cannot possibly be wrong.
Ergo, any evidence which incontrovertibly shows them to be wrong, must have been misinterpreted, or just plain made up. After all, how could such geniuses possibly be wrong? I mean, solar wind H+, travelling at ~400 km/s, with an energy of ~1 keV can combine with O- to form OH, can't it? Wal says it can, so it must be true. Except it isn't. You'd have thought that might have raised questions for a kick off. But it doesn't because, by definition, the believers are incapable of realising this. And so it goes on.
 
Last edited:
So who's this bloody young whipper snapper Franklin Anariba, PhD????

Water from silicate's pfffff...upstart.

Let’s keep in mind that the Microwave Instrument for Rosetta Orbiter (MIRO) [8] , months ago, did not find significant water ice on the surface of comet 67P. In the article titled “The diurnal cycle of water ice on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko” by De Sanctis et al [9] a water ice cycle is proposed based on measurements using infrared spectroscopy (VIRTIS). In this study, the infrared reflectance spectra taken from various levels of illuminated regions of the surface of comet 67P reveals:

1. A broad absorption band at 2.8 to 3.6 μm, attributed to organic compounds.
2. The absence of pure water ice absorption bands indicates an upper limit of about 1% by volume of water ice at VIRTIS resolution.
3. A “flattening of the continuum slope and a reduced thermal emission as the 3-μm band depth increases,” suggesting exposed water ice in addition to organic material.

On the basis of these observations, the authors use scattering theory to model the infrared reflectance spectra as an intimate mixture of water ice and organics to derive water ice abundance maps. In order to fit the data the model required for relative water ice abundance in the mixture to be 10-15%. This kind of particular analysis of modelling empirical observation is quite acceptable in the scientific community and the authors here make reasonable assumptions to fit the data. However, the strength of a model is measured by the assumptions made. Subsequently, from the modelling, the authors extract water ice abundance maps and propose a “direct condensation of gas sublimation from the subsurface under appropriate thermodynamic conditions.” By thermodynamic condition, the authors imply a temperature inversion mechanism, which works more or less like this:

Water ice in the water/organic mixture sublimates from the uppermost surface layers. When this surface is not illuminated by the sun, such as shadows or night time, a temperature inversion occurs between the now colder top surface layer and interior layers, a few centimeters deep. Water vapour in the warmer interior layers diffuses upwards and condenses in the uppermost colder layer, where it sits stably until it is illuminated again, upon which the water ice undergoes sublimation. Then, the cycle repeats again.

It is beneficial to place the study in a wider context. Although based on the title of the manuscript, one might think that there is water ice on the surface of the nucleus of comet 67P, the authors clearly state that:

a. “It must be mentioned that the contribution to the total out-gassing from these surface layers is limited in time.”
b. “The amount of water flux coming from the superficial ice documented by VIRTIS represents ~3% of the total water flux measured by MIRO.” VIRTIS uses infrared emission spectroscopy while MIRO uses microwave spectroscopy.

In other words, this mechanism represents a very small percentage of the total water presence on the surface of the nucleus. A quick analysis of these findings and the observations reported on solar sputtering mentioned earlier leads me to think that solar sputtering can play a role in the water ice observations for the following reasons:

a. According to the derive water ice abundance maps, only small amounts of water ice are detected on the surface.
b. Water ice seems to be replenished in regions of lesser illumination, such as shadows or at night time.
c. Solar sputtering has been shown to be effective in areas of lesser illumination.

Taken together, it is reasonable to attribute the observed water ice formed in less illuminated areas to proton (H+) implantation into refractory silicates where they interact with oxygen atoms located in the refractory silicate lattice structures. This is not unusual as it has already been demonstrated to occur in laboratory experiments and thought to be the dominant mechanism for water ice found on crater rims on the moon.

In episode 5, I provide a review of a recent article “Abundant molecular oxygen in the coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko” by Bieler et al, [13] where the detection of relative abundances of molecular oxygen is reported. The presence of molecular oxygen is surprising because it is not predicted by the current and dominant condensation-sublimation model of cometary origin and composition. The letter sent to Nature magazine is well-presented and the observations are derived through direct mass spectrometric measurements with sufficient resolution, such as the double-focused mass spectrometer from ROSINA. Here are the relevant observations:

1. Local molecular oxygen abundances range from 1 to 10% with an average of 3.8% with respect to water abundances.
2. There is a strong correlation between water and molecular oxygen relative abundances in the coma of comet 67P.
3. Molecular oxygen to water relative abundance ratios do not vary as a function of heliocentric distance and for a period of 7 months of observations.
4. Molecular oxygen was detected as close as 10 km away from the comet’s nucleus.

In the backdrop of these observations, the authors put forth a series of well-thought mechanisms to explain the origins of molecular oxygen and water vapour within the condensation-sublimation paradigm. Unfortunately, no explanations beyond this paradigm were presented. Here is a list of the considered mechanisms:

1. Photolysis – defined as ultraviolet photons capable of breaking molecular bonds. This explanation is unsatisfactorily because according to the authors “instantaneous creation of the measured O2 by radiolysis or photolysis seems, overall, unlikely, and would lead to variable O2 ratios due to different illuminated conditions.” In other words, if electromagnetic radiation were the driving force behind molecular oxygen formation, then the molecular oxygen to water vapour ratios would not remain constant, which is not supported by the data.

2. Recent Radiolysis – envisions molecular oxygen production on the nucleus from the interaction of solar energetic particles with peak energies in the few of tens of MeV. This mechanism will only be effective within a few micrometers of the surface. If it were in action, the O2/H2O ratios would have to decrease over time as the top micrometer layers will be exhausted by erosion as the comet orbits the sun. Furthermore, due to comet erosion rates, O2 production rates would have to be very high in order to be supported by the observed data.

3. Primordial O2 – molecular oxygen was formed during the formation of the solar system and accrued in the nucleus of comet 67P. This mechanism implies that higher temperatures are needed to produce significant amounts of O2, suggesting the solar system accretion model formed from unusually warm molecular clouds. In addition, the solar system accretion model does not predict high O2/H2O ratio values as observed. Finally, the solar system accretion model predicts the presence of ozone (O3), which was not detected.

4. Radiolysis before the solar system accretion – O2 is produced by radiolysis in water-ices that are then trapped in voids while somehow hydrogen diffuses out, avoiding hydrogenation of O2, increasing and stabilizing O2 concentrations which can be incorporated into the nucleus. This is an unlikely scenario due to the high O2 reactivity, and because ozone (O3) resulting from O2 radiolysis, as reported to be trapped in Ganymede’s surface, was not detected.

5. In situ O2 production in the coma – The authors argued that the coma is tenuous and therefore may not afford the necessary collision frequency to overcome the activation energy barrier associated with required chemical reactions. Subsequently, the reaction of O + OH → O2 + H remains unfeasible. This analysis holds only if we assume that chemical reactions are driven by electromagnetic radiation.

6. Long term radiolysis after the solar system accretion – O2 production from water by radiolysis produces H, O, and OH, followed by H2, HO2, and H2O2 rearrangement. However, at current erosion rates, comet 67P would require substantial O2 diffusion into the comet’s nucleus from each subsequent passage around the sun to avoid O2 earlier depletion. Moreover, galactic cosmic rays (H+) produce O2 only within tens of meters of the surface, which would have been already released.

7. O2 production via solar wind surface sputtering – This mechanism is not supported by previous findings that show preferential solar wind sputtering in the northern hemisphere. In addition, the northern hemisphere does not contain water ice from which molecular oxygen can be derived. Finally, the O2/H2O relative abundance ratios are independent of latitude and relative constant over 7 months.

8. Incorporation of primordial O2 into the cometary nucleus – Gaseous O2 incorporates into water ices in the proto nebula, which rapidly cools down from > 100 K to < 30 K, trapping O2 in water ices. The last mechanism is the one favored by the authors. However, it can be highlighted that such a mechanism needs the presence of unusually higher temperature in young proto planetary disks, which then undergoes selective rapid cooling. It is possible but difficult to evaluate since no time scale for the cooling is given. Furthermore, O2-riched grains will have to further accrete into larger bodies and then be trapped into the comet nucleus, all the while not reacting, but it is well known that O2 is rather highly reactive.

Highlighting comments made on the ESA website reveal the impact of the findings:

“We weren’t really expecting to detect O2 at the comet – and in such high abundance – because it is so chemically reactive, so it was quite a surprise,” says Kathrin Altwegg of the University of Bern, and principal investigator of the Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis instrument, ROSINA.
“The amount of molecular oxygen detected showed a strong relationship to the amount of water measured at any given time, suggesting that their origin on the nucleus and release mechanism is linked. By contrast, the amount of O2 seen was poorly correlated with carbon monoxide and molecular nitrogen, even though they have a similar volatility to O2. In addition, no ozone was detected” says Andre Bieler of the University of Michigan and lead author of the paper describing the new results in the journal Nature this week.

The following quotation is telling, Andre Bieler goes on to say that “The instantaneous generation of O2 also seems unlikely, as that should lead to variable O2 ratios under different illumination conditions. Instead, it seems more likely that primordial O2 was somehow incorporated into the comet’s ices during its formation, and is being released with the water vapour today.” The only reason in situ O2 generation is not considered is because photons are thought to be the only driving force for chemical reactions in the coma of 67P.
Obviously, under such circumstances the phenomenon seems mysterious. “This is an intriguing result for studies both within and beyond the comet community, with possible implications for our models of Solar System evolution,” says Matt Taylor, ESA’s Rosetta project scientist.

It is clear that the correlation of relative abundances between O2 and H2O indicates a single origin and release mechanism. The question is: which mechanism? I propose a mechanism that allows for the simultaneous formation of O2 and H2O, where the driving force is a voltage differential, such as an electrochemical method. There is plenty of evidence of the presence of filamentary electric fields accelerating electrons and ions in the vicinity of the nucleus, leading to charge separation, as has been demonstrated throughout these episodes. I called this mechanism:

O2 and H2O formation by electrochemical means – In this method, O2, O2-, OH, -OH, and other chemical species are released into the coma by various mechanisms, such as “electron-stripping,” solar wind sputtering, and solar heating. In this context, O2 can absorb a negative charged through charge exchange due to demonstrated high electron densities in the vicinity of the nucleus, followed up by protonation via the solar wind. Subsequently, water can then be formed via at least two pathways linking O2 and H2O formation:

(1) O2 + H → H2O
(2) O2- + H+ → H2O

In this theoretical framework whereby the driving force is a voltage differential in the vicinity of the nucleus, the instantaneous O2 formation reaction that was deemed unfeasible becomes feasible when looked at from an electrochemical perspective as the reaction can occur directly via gas phase collisions or be mediated via silicate catalysis on nanograin surfaces. In a general perspective, a voltage-driven chemical reaction mechanism looks promising as it can explain the formation of complex chemical species, such as water, alcohols, sugar, [14] cyanide polymeric chains, amino acids, and others, with satisfaction without the thermodynamic constraint of low temperatures-driven collisions.

LINK


:)
 
Last edited:
What are you taking from this?
Mention of Silicates means Comets are rock?
Give me a clue.



Sol's process goes something like this:

-bum a copy of a research paper
-wordsearch for EU/EC buzzwords
-cast aspersions but avoid making any declarative statements
-garnish with sniggering

Sort of like pareidolia but with words instead of pictures


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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