Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88: An ignorant question about Philae emphasizes 8 years of delusion

Sol88 said:
How much ice did Philes find?
Click to expand...
An ignorant question as a reply to
14 August 2017 Sol88: A derail from his comets are rock delusion to his ignorance about comets!
14 August 2017 Sol88: The repeated lie of putting ice in quotes.
14 August 2017 Sol88: The "MUPUS tried to hammer into rock" delusion raises its ugly head again!

14 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant question about Philae emphasizes 8 years of delusion that comets are rock.
Philae measured that the ice it landed on (under a dust layer) was too hard for MUPUS to penetrate deeply. It is not your ignorant "how much", it is the properties of the surface of a comet made of ices and dust.
Data from the SESAME instrument determined that, rather than being "soft and fluffy" as expected, Philae's first touchdown site held a large amount of water ice under a layer of granular material about 25 cm (9.8 in) deep.[55]
Click to expand...
That Wikipedia citation is to Surprising Comet Discoveries by Rosetta's Philae Lander Unveiled which actually does not mention SESAME.
Sol88 will go crazy over this quote :p!
Philae
This area was determined to have the consistency of solid ice[56][57] or pumice.[58]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
An ignorant question as a reply to
14 August 2017 Sol88: A derail from his comets are rock delusion to his ignorance about comets!
14 August 2017 Sol88: The repeated lie of putting ice in quotes.
14 August 2017 Sol88: The "MUPUS tried to hammer into rock" delusion raises its ugly head again!

14 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant question about Philae emphasizes 8 years of delusion that comets are rock.
Philae measured that the ice it landed on (under a dust layer) was too hard for MUPUS to penetrate deeply. It is not your ignorant "how much", it is the properties of the surface of a comet made of ices and dust.

That Wikipedia citation is to Surprising Comet Discoveries by Rosetta's Philae Lander Unveiled which actually does not mention SESAME.
Sol88 will go crazy over this quote :p!
Philae
Click to expand...

But what they did find was
The lack of progress into the subsurface can be interpreted as being caused by a near-surface layer of a strength the PEN was not capable of penetrating.
Click to expand...
wow how long do you have to go to university to work that out!


Righto, since you're obviously incapable of using your own grey matter here is how they "confirmed" ice.

From the paper Thermal and mechanical properties of the near-surface layers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko T. Spohn,1* J. Knollenberg,1 A. J. Ball,2 M. Banaszkiewicz,3 J. Benkhoff,2 M. Grott,1 J. Grygorczuk,3 C. Hüttig,1 A. Hagermann,4 G. Kargl,5 E. Kaufmann,4 N. Kömle,5 E. Kührt,1 K. J. Kossacki,6 W. Marczewski,3 I. Pelivan,1 R. Schrödter,1 K. Seiferlin


Snip gibberish
Click to expand...

Bloody iPad won't copy and paste nicely. I'll try and clean it up when I can get behind a real computer :mad:

But the jist is it is ASSUMED to be ice BECAUSE that's what the common model(whipples) said it MUST be , ice.

So no ice was observed.

So....MUPUS Rears its ugly head again for a reason :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So how does the h2o, co2, co gas sublimating under a very good thermally insulating dust granular layer to do its thing thru something as hard as rock ice?
 
Last edited:
@Tusenfem, would you happen to know if Holger Sierks is still in the game?

Gone quite on the OSIRIS front, now all the "looking" is done and dusted.
 
Sol88 said:
So how does the h2o, co2, co gas sublimating under a very good thermally insulating dust granular layer to do its thing thru something as hard as rock ice?
Click to expand...

You assert "how" yourself, by "sublimating". As a direct phase change from solid to gas the molecular degrees of freedom are significantly increased resulting in a profound reduction in hardness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/eqpar.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(mechanics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(physics_and_chemistry)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/phase.html

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/state.html


As hardness is a function of the intermolecular forces...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_force

...and a gaseous state is where those intermolecular forces are the weakest compared to the forces resulting from the thermal energy of the material then hardness is specifically and detrimentally affected.

Those intermolecular forces also result in the cohesion mentioned in the pervious paper.


If your question has more, equal or even less to do with the assertion of a "very good thermally insulating dust granular layer" than the impact [pun intended] of sublimation on hardness. Thermal insulation, even "good" thermal insulation (however you are quantifying that), can only slow down the transfer of thermal energy, it can't stop it. Solid materials (like rock) tend to conduct thermal energy so the best insulators are materials with small pockets or gaps. These gaps reduce the conduction and can be gas filled if their size is small enough to prevent convection of the gas. Even with vacuum gaps thermal energy can still transfer as infrared radiation.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction

Again the intermolecular forces and resulting degrees of freedom of the molecular structure of a solid material determine how well it conducts thermal energy.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: Two lies about a Spohn & Ball paper.

Sol88 said:
But what they did find was...
Click to expand...
15 August 2017 Sol88: Two lies about a Spohn & Ball paper.
Thermal and mechanical properties of the near-surface layers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Abstract
Thermal and mechanical material properties determine comet evolution and even solar system formation because comets are considered remnant volatile-rich planetesimals. Using data from the Multipurpose Sensors for Surface and Sub-Surface Science (MUPUS) instrument package gathered at the Philae landing site Abydos on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, we found the diurnal temperature to vary between 90 and 130 K. The surface emissivity was 0.97, and the local thermal inertia was 85 ± 35 J m(-2) K(-1)s(-1/2). 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...
Firstly, Sol88 lies about a layer of ices & dust being an assumption when the authors test to see if the data matches a high porosity dust-ice layer.
Secondly, Sol88 lies about the authors blindly following Whipple's model. The authors are not so ignorant and deluded to think that comets are rocks. They know the measured density of comets. They especially know the measured density of 67P :jaw-dropp!
 
Sol88: Delusion of a "very good thermally insulating" layer

Sol88 said:
So how does the h2o, co2, co gas sublimating under a very good thermally insulating dust granular layer to do its thing thru something as hard as rock ice?
Click to expand...
15 August 2017 Sol88: Resurrected delusion of a "very good thermally insulating" layer.
The Man replied with a list of links to science that Sol88 has persistently denied with this ignorant question.
Comets heat up as they get closer to the Sun. This is fairly uniform - hotter on the sunlit side, cooler on the night side and throughout the nucleus. Ices sublimate when they are heated enough. That they are covered with a layer of dust and a layer of sintered dust & ices does not change this. That sublimation also applies to the layer of sintered dust & ices :eek:!
There is an implied second delusion - that this layer of sintered dust & ices is universal, i.e. covers the entire surface of 67P and every other comet. The varied terrain of comets makes this wrong. We have no reason to think that the cliffs on 67P have this layer. We see jets coming from pits that are deeper than the layer. There are some craters on 67P which show outgassing. The first impact of Philae was on a relatively soft surface:
Surprising Comet Discoveries by Rosetta's Philae Lander Unveiled
A diverse surface
While Philae's double-bounce touchdown doubtless frayed some nerves among the lander team, it actually has provided some scientific benefits. For example, researchers were able to characterize 67P's surface at both the initial and final touchdown sites (which have been dubbed Agilkia and Abydos, respectively).

And those two sites are quite different, it turns out. Agilkia's surface is relatively soft, covered with a layer of granular material about 0.82 feet (0.25 meters) deep, while Abydos is much harder.
Click to expand...


15 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of a "something as hard as rock" (even struck out).
Thermal and mechanical properties of the near-surface layers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
The MUPUS results were a "sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65%". Over 67 years of observations show that comets are ices and dust (Whipple published his model in 1950 based on existing data).
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
15 August 2017 Sol88: Resurrected delusion of a "very good thermally insulating" layer.
The Man replied with a list of links to science that Sol88 has persistently denied with this ignorant question.
Comets heat up as they get closer to the Sun. This is fairly uniform - hotter on the sunlit side, cooler on the night side and throughout the nucleus. Ices sublimate when they are heated enough. That they are covered with a layer of dust and a layer of sintered dust & ices does not change this. That sublimation also applies to the layer of sintered dust & ices :eek:!
There is an implied second delusion - that this layer of sintered dust & ices is universal, i.e. covers the entire surface of 67P and every other comet. The varied terrain of comets makes this wrong. We have no reason to think that the cliffs on 67P have this layer. We see jets coming from pits that are deeper than the layer. There are some craters on 67P which show outgassing. The first impact of Philae was on a relatively soft surface:
Surprising Comet Discoveries by Rosetta's Philae Lander Unveiled



15 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of a "something as hard as rock" (even struck out).
Thermal and mechanical properties of the near-surface layers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
The MUPUS results were a "sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65%". Over 67 years of observations show that comets are ices and dust (Whipple published his model in 1950 based on existing data).
Click to expand...

Yup, looks like you've got the dirtysnowball down pat 'ol mate!

That's exactly how I remember it being told to me in primary school. Great to see we've moved on..not.

looks like the bulk density has got you mob stumped! :) Really quite funny watching the mainstream trying smash a round peg into a square hole!!

If you'd actuality read and UNDERSTAND the papers they calibrated the MUPUS-PEN in to
Table 1. PEN hammer calibration data. The table collects PEN hammer calibration results in three foam glasses of differing strength. Foam glasses T4 and F are commercially available. Foam glass SRC was produced at Space Research Centre (SRC) Warsaw for the prelaunch calibration measurements. The samples were kept for reference at SRC Warsaw. Listed are the uniaxial compressive strengths as given by the manufacturers for foam glasses T4 and F, and the results of control measurements done at Technische Universität (TU) Graz in 2015 for foam glasses F and SRC along with a value calculated for T4 ( 22 ) using data of a shear deformation measurement. Also given is the static penetration resistance measured at SRC Warsaw (supplementary materials). The static penetration resistance per unit area is the strength of a material into which a pile is driven.The compressive strength is measured by placing a sample cylinder between two plates of the same radius. For a homogenous, isotropic medium and a thin pile, the static penetration resistance per unit area should be twice the uniaxial compressive strength for geometrical reasons of stress propagation. The table further gives the rate of penetration progress in millimeters per four hammer strokes at the four energy levels of the hammer mechanism. The energy stored in the capacitor of the mechanism is listed per level.The efficiency of the PEN mechanism, defined as the ratio of deformational energy to the energy stored, was found to be ~10%.
Click to expand...

So are you saying the
"sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65%".
Click to expand...
is the same as the foam glasses?

Because from the table above that's how they calibrated the penetrator! Can you imagine the surprise when the layer was harder (way harder) than expected and the penetrator was recoiling off the hard stuff.
An independent estimate of the strength can be made by using the efficiency c of the hammer mechanism of 10% and taking the downward movements of the hammer tip d of ~3 mm re- corded by the DS as deformation of the surface (the stronger upward movements interpreted as recoil).
Click to expand...

all that can be CONFIRMED is the layer the penetrator would not penetrate is greater than 4mpa and that's IT!
The lack of progress into the subsurface can be interpreted as being caused by a near-surface layer of a strength the PEN was not capable of penetrating.
Click to expand...

The rest is banging that round peg. WHAT could be so hard on the surface of a comet? can't be rock or solid ice cause your nucleus bulk density would be incorrect, which we KNOW is correct!

From the paper Thermal and mechanical properties of the near-surface layers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
 
Last edited:
Sol88:A lie of "looks like the bulk density has got you mob stumped!"

Sol88 said:
...
Click to expand...
Usual stuff:
15 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of "looks like the bulk density has got you mob stumped!" when it is you has the delusion that comets are rocks and their bulk density is measured to be less than that of water.
The bulk density of comets has been measured for over 67 years and stumps no one who can read which is what makes the statement into a lie.

15 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant delusion about the MUPUS-PEN calibration in the lab being what MUPUS detected on 67P.
This is basic science. We have an instrument. We want to use it to make measurements of a property. We calibrate that instrument using materials with already known properties. For example, we might calibrate a thermometer by looking at what it reads with ice and with boiling water. Using that thermometer to measure the temperature of a person does not make them into ice or boiling water :eek:!
Table 1. PEN hammer calibration data is the calibration of the hammer against materials with already known properties.

15 August 2017 Sol88: Repeating his delusions that comets are rocks, etc.

15 August 2017 Sol88: The idiocy that a "sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65%" = bulk density.
 
Last edited:
194 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 13 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
Not yet 2 days and we already have:
  1. 14 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about a imaginary "fatal problem" for the mainstream model.
  2. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Deep ignorance about what he quotes as usual!
  3. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Another lie about the Skorov et. al. (2017) paper.
  4. 14 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant fantasy about Skorov et. al which is not about outbursts.
  5. 14 August 2017 Sol88: The bad act of not giving a link to his source again!
  6. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Debunks his comet are rocks delusion by citing a thermal lag paper!
  7. 14 August 2017 Sol88: A "surprise" lie that dust from 67P is charged.
  8. 14 August 2017 Sol88: A lying question exposing his comets are rocks delusion yet again.
  9. 14 August 2017 Sol88: A derail from his comets are rock delusion to his ignorance about comets!
  10. 14 August 2017 Sol88: The repeated lie of putting ice in quotes.
  11. 14 August 2017 Sol88: The "MUPUS tried to hammer into rock" delusion raises its ugly head again!
  12. 14 August 2017 Sol88: A delusion that questions about the electric comet theory are irrelevant to a thread about the electric comet theory.
  13. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from?
  14. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Gibberish about not looking thru the telescope.
  15. 14 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant question about Philae emphasizes 8 years of delusion that comets are rock.
  16. 15 August 2017 Sol88: Two lies about a Spohn & Ball paper
  17. 15 August 2017 Sol88: Resurrected delusion of a "very good thermally insulating" layer.
  18. 15 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of a "something as hard as rock" (even struck out).
  19. 15 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of "looks like the bulk density has got you mob stumped!" when it is you has the delusion that comets are rocks and their bulk density is measured to be less than that of water.
  20. 15 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant delusion about the MUPUS-PEN calibration in the lab being what MUPUS detected on 67P.
  21. 15 August 2017 Sol88: Repeating his delusions that comets are rocks, etc.
  22. 15 August 2017 Sol88: The idiocy that a "sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65%" = bulk density.
 
Sol88 said:
So are you saying the is the same as the foam glasses?
Click to expand...
Read what I wrote:
15 August 2017 Sol88: Two lies about a Spohn & Ball paper
Reality Check said:
Firstly, Sol88 lies about a layer of ices & dust being an assumption when the authors test to see if the data matches a high porosity dust-ice layer.
Secondly, Sol88 lies about the authors blindly following Whipple's model. The authors are not so ignorant and deluded to think that comets are rocks. They know the measured density of comets. They especially know the measured density of 67P :jaw-dropp!
Click to expand...
I am saying that your delusions have lead you to lie about that paper which gets more deluded with that question:
15 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant delusion about the MUPUS-PEN calibration in the lab being what MUPUS detected on 67P.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Read what I wrote:
15 August 2017 Sol88: Two lies about a Spohn & Ball paper

I am saying that your delusions have lead you to lie about that paper which gets more deluded with that question:
15 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant delusion about the MUPUS-PEN calibration in the lab being what MUPUS detected on 67P.
Click to expand...

So show me the paper where they tested the MUPUS-PEN for penetration into a sintered ice layer of 30% to 65% porosity at the temperatures measured on 67P... :D

In actual fact it could be any thing greater than 4mpa! Maybe even "well consolidated material"!!!
 
Last edited:
Sol88: An "anything" fantasy - the layer had to be ices and dust

Sol88 said:
In actual fact it could be any thing greater than 4mpa!
Click to expand...
15 August 2017 Sol88: An "anything" fantasy - the layer MUPUS hammered into had to be ices and dust because that is the composition of comets.
15 August 2017 Sol88: Two lies about a Spohn & Ball paper
15 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant delusion about the MUPUS-PEN calibration in the lab being what MUPUS detected on 67P.[/QUOTE]

15 August 2015 Sol88: The delusion that "well consolidated material" means his comets are rocks delusion?
When astronomers talk about well consolidated materials on comets they mean ices and dust that is packed closer to together than looser ices and dust. So instead of ices and dust with an average porosity of 70% as detected in the bulk of 67P there may be ices and dust with a porosity of 30% as in
A sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65% is consistent with the data
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
So show me the paper where they tested the MUPUS-PEN ...
Click to expand...
Supposed to be humorous but exposes your inability to understand what you read, namely the text after Table 1. PEN hammer calibration data where the authors explain
Laboratory data on the strength of ice and ice dust mixtures are rare at relevant temperatures as measured at Abydos.
Click to expand...
They found 5 relevant papers.
 
Oh and since it's one of your favourite gripes on my lack of maths skills and since your so bloody good at it
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 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
Click to expand...

but instead of using tensile strength estimate of <12 kPa (Deep Impact crater observation for comet Tempel-1 resulted in a tensile strength estimate of <12 kPa) try using the MEASURED tensile strength of >4Mpa.

Knock your self out champ!

A crater and its ejecta: An interpretation of Deep Impact Keep this in mind though
3.4. Highly porous materials For this case we can only make rough estimates, based entirely on the two experiments mentioned above, and assuming the comet material behaves similarly to the experiments. The predicted crater diameter would be 22 m. The crater would have a mass on the order of 3.4×105 kg and the ejected mass would be 1.7 × 105 kg. About 3.1 × 104 kg would escape, or about 18% of the total, on the same order of mass as for the rock case. The ejecta mass would decrease rapidly over the first few hours. The time dependence was plotted in Fig. 3.
Click to expand...

3.3. Nonporous materials: rocks and water A lower limit for crater size and ejected mass would be for a rocky target. While it is not likely that Tempel 1 is as strong as a terrestrial soft rock, this case is included for completeness. A typical strength for soft rock targets (Holsapple, 1993) is 3 MPa, which gives a predicted crater diameter of 11 m. The crater volume would be only 79 m3, its mass 3.9×104 kg, and its ejecta mass 2 ×104 kg. All of the ejecta would have velocities well in excess of the escape speed, with the slowest having a velocity of about 72 m/s. The ejecta plume would therefore have small but constant mass in time (Fig. 3). The crater would form in only 31 ms. Finally the limit case of water is considered. That case gives an appropriate upper limit for crater size and ejected mass when the surface is nonporous (so it couples the impactor energy well) but of negligible strength. In this limiting case, the predicted crater would be 356 m in diameter, take 11 min to form, and 9.7×106 kg would remain in the far-field plume, although that mass would be only 0.3% of the total ejected mass. The rest would fall back to the surface.
Click to expand...

And your comfortable enough to hang you hat on the results... shows.
 
Last edited:
Sol88: A lie about "lack of maths skills" - it is your fear of physics

Sol88 said:
Oh and since it's one of your favourite gripes on my lack of maths skills and since your so bloody good at it
Click to expand...
16 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about "lack of maths skills" - that question exposes your fear of basic physics!
Reality Check said:
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.
Click to expand...

An abysmal "lack of maths skills" is a different matter:
16 August 2017 Sol88: Reminds everyone of 8 years of the delusion that 0.6 is 3.0.
The measured average density of comets is 0.6 g/cc.
The measured average density of asteroids is 3.0 g/cc.

16 August 2017 Sol88: Ignorant statement about Rosetta (launched before Deep Impact)!
Rosetta was a space probe built by the European Space Agency launched on 2 March 2004
Deep Impact was a NASA space probe launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station at 18:47 UTC on January 12, 2005
The design and testing of MUPUS-PEN was years before 2004.
 
Sol88: The idiocy of citing a paper giving Tempel 1 was softer than predicted

Sol88 said:
A crater and its ejecta: An interpretation of Deep Impact Keep this in mind though
Click to expand...
Let us keep in mind:
16 August 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a paper that means that Comet Tempel 1 was softer than predicted!
You quote sections 3.4 and 3.3. The predicted crater diameter would be 22 m. and an unlikely "terrestrial soft rock ... which gives a predicted crater diameter of 11 m.". The measured crater diameter was about 150 meters :eye-poppi!
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.
For your delusion that comets are rock, the predicted crater diameter is ~7 meters.
 
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