Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88: A lie about directly comparing mainstream and EU models of comets

We need to have this minor detail cleared up so we can directly compare models based on the new observations and data (and papers) now available.
11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about directly comparing mainstream and EU models of comets.

For lurkers:
The EU has no comet model - just their ignorant and deluded stories about comets, e.g. blasted off Earth by electrical discharges in recent times. But they are not brave enough to state this clearly in any recent text. You have to waste your time and kill brain cells by watching their propaganda videos on comets! RationalWiki has the EU claim Planets give birth to comets.[12]. But deluded Wal Thornhill has blog articles where electric comet delusions are explicitly stated, e.g. The Deep Impact of Comet Theory has comets blasted from planets + are rocks + coma/tail = "plasma sheath" + electric arc discharges + electric discharge machining delusions.
Sol88 hides this by not linking to any actual comet theory pages on the Thunderbolts cult web site!
Sol88 has known the mainstream model of comets for 8 years. There is no "minor detail" - it is a major derailing attempt to hide the his delusion that comets are rocks.
Sol88 has been denying all of the observations of comets that there have ever been and ditto for the papers (e.g. their measured density of less than water) for 8 ye4ars now! As for new observations and papers - these include the measured density of 67P being not rock, none of his electrical discharges detected, etc.
Sol88 knows that the Thunderbolts cult have lied about and are totally deluded about comets but links to Thunderbolts web pages confirming those delusions :jaw-dropp!

11 August 2017 Sol88: Links to a new (July, 2017) lying Thunderbolts "History of Electric Comet Theory: An Introduction" page.
The Thunderbolts electric comet delusion starting with them being blasted of Earth is not related to a cherry picked list of sometimes irrelevant historical astronomers speculating about comets.
William Gilbert, Otto von Guericke, Stephen Gray had no electric comet theory.

11 August 2017 Sol88: Links to a new (July, 2017) lying Thunderbolts "History of Electric Comet Theory: Part 2" page.
The Thunderbolts electric comet delusion starting with them being blasted of Earth is not related to a cherry picked list of sometimes irrelevant historical astronomers speculating about comets.
There was a speculation for a couple of centuries that comet tails were bright for the same unknown reason as aurora. This list lies by including
  • Joseph Priestley (no electric comet theory).
  • Johann August Donndorff (no electric comet theory).
  • Karl Gottlob Kühn (no electric comet theory).
  • Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (no electric comet theory).
  • Ernst Chladni (no electric comet theory).
  • Jean André de Luc (a chemical decay comet theory!)

Two years 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.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88)
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
 
Last edited:
11 August 2017 Sol88: A fantasy and insult about me commenting on a phys.org article that I have never even read :jaw-dropp!
It looks like Sol88 thinks that everyone with the username RealityCheck on the Internet is me!

I have now read the article which is about real science, not his delusions about comets.
Magnetic fields in massive star formation cores

11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about hypocrisy.
That RealityCheck asks another commenter to address the science.
Which is exactly what I have been doing.
Your "science" stated 8 years ago was a Thunderbolts claim that comets are rocks.


The science with supporting evidence for the last 67 years is that comets are ices and dust. Thus stating that comets are rocks once is a mistake. Repeating that comets are rocks after been told their density (less than water) is an error. After being told the Deep Impact results (water + dust) it is bordering on delusion. After 8 years and especially the Rosetta mission to 67P we have a documented history of you parroting the Thunderbolts delusion.


When you lie I will document that you lied. Thus that list and the additional items here.
174 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 10 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
In the same post: General Thunderbolt cult stuff + Deafening silence emphasizing the complete ignorance of science behind the comets are rocks delusion.

11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about "magnetic fields support the cores" being predicted by EU.
EU is a bunch of fairy stories from the ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult who start with the stupidity of Velikovsky and add their own inane fantasies to his, e.g. this entire thread! EU has no predictions about the real world.
But just in case this is not yet another delusion:
11 August 2017 Sol88: Cite the EU prediction that during mainstream star formation, "magnetic fields support the cores against the collapse induced by self-gravity".

This is not the EU fairy story about z-pinches and Birkeland currents crushing gas cloud to create a star. This is the mainstream model of a molecular cloud collapsing to form stars.

11 August 2017 Sol88: The persistent 8 year old delusions about comets..


Not you? Sure whinged like you do.

My apologies.
 
You are aware that the 'dirtysnowball' model YOUR model or the icy conglomerate model cannot account for the jets of dust?

Fatal for the dirty snowball model or even the icydirtball and reading the papers that force fit the observations to the model is hilarious!

So it's going to be quite the enlightenment to hear from where the fine dust is coming from.


Started way back with JD116's favourite comet.

Water Ice and Dust in the Innermost Coma of Comet 103P/Hartley 2

The strong correlation between the water ice, dust, and CO2 spatial distribution supports the concept that CO2 gas drags the water ice and dust grains from the nucleus. Once in the coma, the water ice begins subliming while the dust is in a constant outow. The derived water ice scale-length is compatible with the lifetimes expected for 1-µm pure water ice grains at 1 AU, if velocities are near 0.5 m/s. Such velocities, about three order of magnitudes lower than the expansion velocities expected for isolated 1-µm water ice particles [Hanner, 1981; Whipple, 1951], suggest that the observed water ice grains are likely aggregates.

And

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko


Conclusions. In the framework of the presented model, which can be considered common in terms of assumptions and physical parameters in the cometary community, the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism. The sublimation of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding to 1.3 AU. Awayoutof this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.

So someone is wrong, but who?
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Repeats a lie of a 'dirtysnowball' model existing

You are aware that the 'dirtysnowball' model ...
11 August 2017 Sol88: Repeats a lie of a 'dirtysnowball' model existing.
11 August 2017 Sol88: The usual irrelevant derailing away from your delusion that comets are rocks.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Insults rather than stopping digging into a pit of denial about comets

Sure whinged like you do.
11 August 2017 Sol88: Insults rather than stopping digging deeper into a pit of denial about comets.
You have known for 8 years about comets being measured to be less dense than water, etc. making "comets are rocks" into one of many delusions about comets.
 
Sol88: A lying comparison between Protopapa, et. al. and Skorov et. al.

Water Ice and Dust in the Innermost Coma of Comet 103P/Hartley 2
11 August 2017 Sol88: A lying comparison between Protopapa, et. al. and Skorov et. al.
I would say ignorant but 8 years of the comets are rocks delusion + the total irrelevancy of the papers to this thread suggest a lie. If Sol88 owns up to the ignorance of the comparison and irrelevancy of the papers then I will change this to a ignorant, irrelevant comparison.

Water Ice and Dust in the Innermost Coma of Comet 103P/Hartley 2 Protopapa, et. al. (2014).
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko Skorov et. al. (2017)

These are papers about two different comets at two different distances from the Sun (1.06 AU and 1.3 AU).
Protopapa, et. al. (2014) is measurements of Comet 103P/Hartley 2 at a heliocentric distance of 1.06 AU. Those measurements support "the concept that CO2 gas drags the water ice and dust grains from the nucleus".
Skorov et. al. (2017) is a theoretical 1D model of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at a heliocentric distance of 1.3 AU.
 
Last edited:
Ah so Skorov et. al. (2017) is wrong cause it's only a model! Thanks for the clear up RC.


Ummm....
A way out of the impasse requires focusing on a revised common model assumption listed at the beginning of this section.

So what where the common model assumption listed at the beginning of this section, let's take a look,
Dust lifted from a comet nucleus provides enough surface to scatter sunlight, which is the defining characteristic of these small bodies that have attracted our attention for millennia. Although the discussion of dust ejection from cometary nuclei was the focus of many researches starting from the pioneering article of Whipple (Whipple 1950), even today our understanding of this process is far from complete in many respects. The results obtained during the Rosetta mission brought new puzzles and questions.
oh the dirtysnowball rears it's ugly head AGAIN.


Co2 gas can drag out h2o ice and dust at
The dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (67P)
has been detected at surprisingly large heliocentric distances
(~4.3 AU)

We list below the main results that are connected with the topic of this paper. From the OSIRIS instrument results we learned that 1) dust activity is observed everywhere, it is not localized only in jets and/or active regions (hence dust is most likely released from the surface);
So what's lifting the dust again RC?


Summary and Conclusions Comet 103P/Hartley 2 differs in many ways from 9P/Tempel 1 and is an ideal example of hyperactive comets, ones that produce more H2O per unit time than should be possible by sublimation from the small surface area of their nuclei. Supervolatiles, specifically CO2 in the case of Hartley 2, are the primary drivers of activity. The supervolatiles drag out chunks of nearly pure water-ice, which then sublime to provide a large fraction of the total H2O gaseous output of the comet. Other hyperactive comets include 46P/Wirtanen and 21P/Giacobini-Zinner.
EPOXI at Comet Hartley 2

How much dust measured on the surface of 103P/Hartley 2?

or for that matter 67P by Philea?

How hard was the "supposed" ice layer that MUPUS found based on Whipples model, the common model.
 
Sol88: A fantasy that Skorov et. al. (2017) was wrong because "it's only a model"

Ah so Skorov et. al. (2017) is wrong cause it's only a model!
11 August 2017 Sol88: A fantasy about me writing that Skorov et. al. (2017) was wrong because "it's only a model".

11 August 2017 Sol88: A (probably) lying comparison between Protopapa, et. al. and Skorov et. al.
My post says nothing about whether any of the papers are wrong. The post is that it is ignorant to the point of lying to compare a paper on comet measurements on comet 103P at 1.06 AU to a paper on a ices/dust model of 67P at 1.3 AU.

If I did not think that your response would be yet more derailing from your delusion, I would give my opinion about the papers. Hint: The comets are not the same comet :eye-poppi!

11 August 2017 Sol88: Usual derail from his comets are rocks, etc. delusions.
 
Time to document more posts to be visible for eternity :p!
174 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 10 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
  1. 10 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about "dirtysnowball was bust" and was a fairytale.
  2. 10 August 2017 Sol88: Usual ignorance about science - the first flyby of a comet was of Halley's Comet which happens to fit the description of a dirty snowball!
  3. 10 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of there being a electric comet model - delusions are not scientific models.
  4. 10 August 2017 Sol88: Emphasizes over 8 years of ignorance and delusions about comets with a small lie about a paper.
  5. 10 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about a quote mine from the Skorov paper.
  6. 11 August 2017 Sol88: A fantasy and insult about me commenting on a phys.org article that I have never even read :jaw-dropp!
  7. 11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about hypocrisy.
  8. 11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about "magnetic fields support the cores" being predicted by EU.
  9. 11 August 2017 Sol88: The persistent 8 year old delusions about comets.
  10. 11 August 2017 Sol88: Repeats his delusions about his imaginary "dirtysnowball" model.
  11. 11 August 2017 Sol88: Derails yet again from his delusion that comets are rocks blasted from the Earth by electrical discharges from Venus as recorded in myths.
  12. 11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about an irrelevant Gooding and Allton paper.
  13. 11 August 2017 Sol88: Cites the ignorant about comets Franklin Anariba again making up a term for a 67 year old model!
  14. 11 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about directly comparing mainstream and EU models of comets.
  15. 11 August 2017 Sol88: Repeats a lie of a 'dirtysnowball' model existing.
  16. 11 August 2017 Sol88: The usual irrelevant derailing away from your delusion that comets are rocks.
  17. 11 August 2017 Sol88: Insults rather than stopping digging deeper into a pit of denial about comets.
  18. 11 August 2017 Sol88: A lying comparison between Protopapa, et. al. and Skorov et. al.
  19. 11 August 2017 Sol88: A fantasy about me writing that Skorov et. al. (2017) was wrong because "it's only a model".
  20. 11 August 2017 Sol88: Usual derail from his comets are rocks, etc. delusions.
 
11 August 2017 Sol88: A lying comparison between Protopapa, et. al. and Skorov et. al.
I would say ignorant but 8 years of the comets are rocks delusion + the total irrelevancy of the papers to this thread suggest a lie. If Sol88 owns up to the ignorance of the comparison and irrelevancy of the papers then I will change this to a ignorant, irrelevant comparison.

Water Ice and Dust in the Innermost Coma of Comet 103P/Hartley 2 Protopapa, et. al. (2014).
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko Skorov et. al. (2017)

These are papers about two different comets at two different distances from the Sun (1.06 AU and 1.3 AU).
Protopapa, et. al. (2014) is measurements of Comet 103P/Hartley 2 at a heliocentric distance of 1.06 AU. Those measurements support "the concept that CO2 gas drags the water ice and dust grains from the nucleus".
Skorov et. al. (2017) is a theoretical 1D model of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at a heliocentric distance of 1.3 AU.

Haha kneeslappn fun there RC!

You (mainstream) have a fatal problem for the icy conglomerate model.

How's all the dust ending up in the coma REALITY CHECK?
 
One can compare the icy grains in comet Hartley 2, a hyperactive comet from which icy grains are apparently dragged out continuously by gaseous CO2, with the icy grains mechanically excavated from 10-20-m depths in the low-activity comet Tempel 1 [Sunshine et al., 2007], and with the icy grains excavated by the infrequent but large natural outbursts of comet Holmes [Yang et al., 2009]. In all three cases, the icy grains are relatively pure and dominated by particles of order 1 µm in size. Taken together this suggests that in most comets the ice in the interior of the nuclei is in the form of aggregates of relatively pure ice and that intimate mixtures of ice and refractories are rare. Furthermore, this implies that nuclei are commonly very porous, as suggested by the few bulk densities that have been determined and that aggregation models [e.g., Greenberg and Li, 1999] that call for grains with refractory cores, organic mantles, and icy crusts are generally inappropriate for comets.
Water Ice and Dust in the Innermost Coma of Comet 103P/Hartley 2

And the dust is where?
 
Last edited:
So someone is wrong, but who?

No, why does every comet has to do the same?
It has been shown that H2O and CO2 on comet 67P/CG are spatially differentiated, so you cannot compare Hartley with 67P if at the former the two species are mixed.
Kind of obvious.
 
No, why does every comet has to do the same?
It has been shown that H2O and CO2 on comet 67P/CG are spatially differentiated, so you cannot compare Hartley with 67P if at the former the two species are mixed.
Kind of obvious.

:confused:

No, the new assumptions are volatiles, including supervolitiles, can not remove the ubiquitous "dust' that we see in the COMA! On the nucleus we see granular material down to instruments resolution under that was impervious the MUPUS probe (well consolidated material)

AND.. it's HARD, really hard!

It was presumed that it shall be ice :blush:

Doesn't matter how far from the sun the nucleus is or WHERE the jets are located on the nucleus. :boxedin:
 
So Skorov et al are on the money :)

Though there is one alternative that's on offer...

SIMULATION OF THE ELECTROSTATIC CHARGING OF PHILAE ON 67P/CHURYUMOV-GERASIMENKO AND OF ITS INTERACTION WITH THE DUSTS.

And

Electrostatic forces on grains near asteroids and comets

Charged particle signatures of the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov)–Gerasimenko

Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity


I was thinking they may have something to do with it..
 
Last edited:
The Skorov papers model puts an interesting new spin on the The 2016 Feb 19 outburst of comet 67P/CG: an ESA Rosetta multi-instrument study paper.

Where all the dust come from, one would wonder?

And such fine dust
The area of the target scanned to date is 90 880 μm2 and 135 particles have been identied with an areal coverage of 4.2 per cent. The particle count does not attempt to separate impact fragments from individual particles since the coverage is not yet suf cient to determine this, and thus represents an upper limit. For this reason, a true size distribution of the particles prior to collection cannot yet be established. Instead, some limits are given based on the effective diameters (the diameter of a circle having the same projected area as the particle) of the collected particles or fragments. Ninety per cent have an effective size less than 9.3 μm and 50 per cent less than 3.7 μm.
from the paper
 
Last edited:
According to the model, the sublimation temperatures in the source area could well exceed the minimum of 175 K needed for sustaining the outgassing flux of 1 × 10-6 kg m-2 s-1. However, 1 Pa is an order of magnitude higher than the maximum vapor pressure achieved. Additional numerical simulations with particle sizes up to 1 cm (still assuming a low thermal conductivity of up to 0.1 W K-1 m-1, to account for the timescale of conduction of ~1 h) suggest that water vapor pressure is unlikely to overcome the tensile strength of a homogeneous dust layer up to a few centimeters in thickness, as noted by Blum et al. (2014) and Gundlach et al. (2015). This work is not meant to address this rather profound issue in cometary physics, and certainly not to discuss a sufficient condition for dust activities. The more realistic scenario of a nonuniform dust layer composed of particles with a certain size distribution and packing structure may be worth considering (Skorov et al. 2011). In addition, the role of super-volatiles, such as CO and CO2, in facilitating, or driving, the observed dust activities will be investigated in future studies.
Sunset jets observed on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko sustained by subsurface thermal lag

And the dust is charged! :D

AbstractThe Grain Impact Analyzer and Dust Accumulator (GIADA) instrument on board ESA's Rosetta missionis constraining the origin of the dust particles detected within the coma of comet 67 P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (67P). The collected particles belong to two families: (i) compact particles (ranging in sizefrom 0.03 to 1 mm), witnessing the presence of materials that underwent processing within the solarnebula and (ii) fluffy aggregates (ranging in size from 0.2 to 2.5 mm) of sub-micron grains that may be arecord of a primitive component, probably linked to interstellar dust. The dynamics of the fluffyaggregates constrain their equivalent bulk density to kg m. These aggregates are charged,fragmented, and decelerated by the spacecraft negative potential and enter GIADA in showers offragments at speeds m s. The density of such optically thick aggregates is consistent with the lowbulk density of the nucleus. The mass contribution of the fluffy aggregates to the refractory component ofthe nucleus is negligible and their coma brightness contribution is less than 15%.
DENSITY AND CHARGE OF PRISTINE FLUFFY PARTICLES FROM COMET67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO
 
Sunset jets observed on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko sustained by subsurface thermal lag

And the dust is charged! :D

DENSITY AND CHARGE OF PRISTINE FLUFFY PARTICLES FROM COMET67P/CHURYUMOV–GERASIMENKO


Here's a link for Sol's second quote

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/802/1/L12

Note that the "equivalent bulk density" figure missing from his quote is "< 1 kg m-3"

Sol still wants us to think the barest mention of dust or charge implies rocks or lightning bolts. Sad.
 
Last edited:
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