Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Sol88 · Oct 15, 2018

Are you implying all those PEER REVIEWED MAINSTREAM PAPERS are wrong? Or just misusing words ‘cos it’s easier to say rock than we’ll consolidated refractory material?

Looks like it to this LIAR!

The Deep Impact experiment on comet Tempel-1 yielded initially an extremely low (“effective”) strength (<65 Pa) (7), raising questions as to whether a comet lander could land on such weak material. Experimental work on the aerodynamic (i.e., tensile?) strength of meteoroids (5), as well as particles collected by Stardust in the coma of comet 81P/Wild 2 (6), also indicated a strength range of 3 to 80 kPa on the submillimeter-to-centimeter scale. The landings of Philae, despite not proceeding as planned, provide direct observations of the surface mechanical properties and thus a baseline for comparison with these previous studies.

And a cherry pick

The two sites Agilkia and Abydos are situated in two different morphological regions: very likely in Ma’at and Bastet. Whereas the Ma’at region appears to be covered by a smooth “dust” layer (15, 23) with a brittle underlayer, Bastet is described as an exposed consolidated surface with minimal bouldering, possibly part of the basal unit. The size distribution of the regolith at Ma’at is now constrained by ROLIS data as still granular at 0.9 cm/pixel and is interpreted as “airfall” (15). Both morphological descriptions are consistent with our observations.

Ouch!

4Mpa lower limit for 67P?

Sol88 · Oct 15, 2018

A’Hearn Part of the Deep Impact experiment, you said jd116?

Wonder why he would have used those unfortunate words at some conference?

Or

He’s on the money! The mainstreams understanding is EVOLVING toward MOSTLY ROCK!

Or do have trouble simply saying Whipple’s may be wrong because he did not have the FULL set of data now offered by Rosetta to be the CORRECT MODEL?

Reality Check · Oct 16, 2018

Looks like a delusion that not expecting rock = cannot detect rock

Sol88 said:
My bold. ...

16 October 2018: Looks like a delusion that not expecting rock = cannot detect rock.

Usual insanity of citing ices and dust comet papers and lying about them.
Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity.
A repeated insane insult of Michael A’Hearn.

Reality Check · Oct 16, 2018

Persistent stupidity that "rock" in ices and comet papers is actual rock.

Sol88 said:
Are you implying all those PEER REVIEWED MAINSTREAM PAPERS are wrong? ...

16 October 2018: Persistent stupidity that "rock" in ices and comet papers is actual rock.

Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity.
A repeated insane insult of Michael A’Hearn.

Reality Check · Oct 16, 2018

Stupidity that A’Hearn using standard terms is "unfortunate words"

Sol88 said:
A’Hearn Part of the Deep Impact experiment, you said jd116?

16 October 2018: Stupidity that A’Hearn using standard terms is "unfortunate words".
Really stupid because he is the one citing the use of geology terms such as rock in papers about comets made of ices and dust :jaw-dropp

.

A obscure bunch of insane cranks using the word rock does not mean that rational people cannot use the word rock.

We have a mixture of ices and dust with high porosity in a low gravity environment. That mixture does not exist n Earth. We want a name for it. So we use terms like rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc. keeping in mind that that they are not actual rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc.

16 October 2018: Repeats an insane insult of Michael A’Hearn who was knowledgeable, sane and did not state that comets are actual rocks.
Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity.
A repeated insane insult of Michael A’Hearn.

Sol88 · Oct 16, 2018

Reality Check said:
16 October 2018: Stupidity that A’Hearn using standard terms is "unfortunate words".
Really stupid because he is the one citing the use of geology terms such as rock in papers about comets made of ices and dust .

A obscure bunch of insane cranks using the word rock does not mean that rational people cannot use the word rock.

We have a mixture of ices and dust with high porosity in a low gravity environment. That mixture does not exist n Earth. We want a name for it. So we use terms like rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc. keeping in mind that that they are not actual rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc.

16 October 2018: Repeats an insane insult of Michael A’Hearn who was knowledgeable, sane and did not state that comets are actual rocks.
Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity.
A repeated insane insult of Michael A’Hearn.

We have a mixture of ices and dust with high porosity in a low gravity environment. That mixture does not exist n Earth. We want a name for it. So we use terms like rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc. keeping in mind that that they are not actual rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc.

So ROCK then RC?

Reality Check · Oct 16, 2018

A deluded "So ROCK then RC" lie to derail form his electric comet insanity

Sol88 said:
So ROCK then RC?

16 October 2018: A deluded "So ROCK then RC" lie to derail form his electric comet insanity.
Deluded because he has 9 years of my position that the evidence is comets are ices and dust, not his ROCK electric comet insanity.

Sol88's electric comet insanity:
Sol88's comet delusions include comets are rocks; these rocks were blasted from the Earth including recently; blasting was by electrical discharges between Earth and Venus; an imaginary solar electric field charges up comets; the charge causes never detected electrical discharges; comet jets are electrical discharges; images show that comets are rocks; Birkeland currents in comets and their tails with no appropriate magnetic field; papers using bedrock to describe layers of ices support his comet are rock delusion, imaginary double layers do magic; many years of lying that ices have not been detected on comets, a "hard shell of refractory +material on the outside" lie, insanity of consolidated ices and dust in papers being rock, an insane spate of lies about ices and dust papers.
Totally inane delusions about charge separation doing magic. Stupidly thinks that a ambipolar electric field is a double layer.
Insanity of dust removal from the surface changing measured comet density
Electrical discharge machining insanity.
A repeated insane insult of Michael A’Hearn.

Reality Check · Oct 16, 2018

Reality Check said:
Another spate of ~258 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion, derails, insults, and lies from 27 July 2018 to 10 October 2018

Another spate of ~273 items of ignorance, idiocy (citing irrelevant mainstream papers), delusion, derails, insults, and lies from 27 July 2018 to 16 October 2018

Sol88 · Oct 16, 2018

cool so we are all calling it ROCK then?

So the electric field centred on the rocky nucleus (, keeping in mind that that they are not actual rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc.) maybe strong enough to release dust from the surface?

What ya reckon rc?

jonesdave116 · Oct 16, 2018

Sol88 said:
A’Hearn Part of the Deep Impact experiment, you said jd116?

Wonder why he would have used those unfortunate words at some conference?

Or

He’s on the money! The mainstreams understanding is EVOLVING toward MOSTLY ROCK!

Or do have trouble simply saying Whipple’s may be wrong because he did not have the FULL set of data now offered by Rosetta to be the CORRECT MODEL?

What rock? Show me in the data where rock was detected, or shut up. Yes?

jonesdave116 · Oct 16, 2018

Are you implying all those PEER REVIEWED MAINSTREAM PAPERS are wrong? Or just misusing words ‘cos it’s easier to say rock than we’ll consolidated refractory material?

Quit lying. I could link a shed load of papers (and have done) from various instruments that show definitively that it isn't rock. You, on the other hand, cannot link a single one that says that it is. As I said, quit with the lying. No rock, no electric discharges. The electric comet lunacy is well and truly dead. In fact, as it was scientifically impossible, it was never alive, except in what counts for the brains of a handful of neo-Velikovskian nutjobs.

steenkh · Oct 16, 2018

Sol88 said:
cool so we are all calling it ROCK then?

So the electric field centred on the rocky nucleus (, keeping in mind that that they are not actual rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc.) maybe strong enough to release dust from the surface?

What ya reckon rc?

Are you abandoning the idea that comets are made of solid rock for the idea that they are made predominantly out of dust?

Sol88 · Oct 16, 2018

steenkh said:
Are you abandoning the idea that comets are made of solid rock for the idea that they are made predominantly out of dust?

No, I also call rock, rock!

Now, we all call the nucleus rock.

Not actual rock, pseudo rock.

Hard like rock, looks like rock , taste like rock but not actual rock.

Sol88 · Oct 16, 2018

jonesdave116 said:
Quit lying. I could link a shed load of papers (and have done) from various instruments that show definitively that it isn't rock. You, on the other hand, cannot link a single one that says that it is. As I said, quit with the lying. No rock, no electric discharges. The electric comet lunacy is well and truly dead. In fact, as it was scientifically impossible, it was never alive, except in what counts for the brains of a handful of neo-Velikovskian nutjobs.

Enlighten us ‘o great one...

Which is specifically the scientifically impossibility?

Don’t embarrass yourself.

jonesdave116 · Oct 16, 2018

Sol88 said:
No, I also call rock, rock!

Now, we all call the nucleus rock.

Not actual rock.

Nope, no rock. Not a single instrument, as well as an impact, has ever seen rock at a comet. Zero rock. I'm struggling to understand the mindset of somebody who believes that there is rock, given all the evidence to the contrary. Baffling. Must be a religious type thing.

Sol88 · Oct 16, 2018

jonesdave116 said:
Nope, no rock. Not a single instrument, as well as an impact, has ever seen rock at a comet. Zero rock. I'm struggling to understand the mindset of somebody who believes that there is rock, given all the evidence to the contrary. Baffling. Must be a religious type thing.

Cool cool as long as you are evolving your understanding that comets are mostly rock.

:jaw-dropp

Not actual rock... but

keeping in mind that that they are not actual rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc.

jonesdave116 · Oct 16, 2018

Sol88 said:
Enlighten us ‘o great one...

Which is specifically the scientifically impossibility?

Don’t embarrass yourself.

EDM! (lol). Try that for a start. Now, that is embarrassing!
Rock! Density is wrong, Tempel 1 impact showed it isn't rock.
Jets as discharges! Already known to be cold, neutral gas and dust and, sometimes, ice.

All this known before the Rosetta mission reached 67P. Ergo, your religious beliefs were already an impossibility. Faith keeps you going, given the total lack of evidence to back up your puerile woo.

jonesdave116 · Oct 16, 2018

cool as long as you are evolving your understanding that comets are mostly rock.

Nope, no rock. Quit with the lies, you're fooling nobody.

jonesdave116 · Oct 16, 2018

Subsurface properties and early activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Gulkis, S. et al.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6220/aaa0709

A low thermal inertia (~10 to 50 J K^–1 m^–2 s^–0.5), consistent with a thermally insulating powdered surface, is inferred.

Tensile strength of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko nucleus material from overhangs
Attree, N. et al.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2018/03/aa32155-17.pdf

Thus, a σT value of a few pascals is a good estimate for the tensile strength of the 67P nucleus material, although further analysis of dynamic stresses, such as those caused by cometary activity and rotation changes, is warranted.

Gravitational slopes, geomorphology, and material strengths of the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko from OSIRIS observations.
Groussin, O. et al.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2015/11/aa26379-15/aa26379-15.html

See Table 1.

Constraints on cometary surface evolution derived from a statistical analysis of 67P’s topography
Vincent, J.-B. et al.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/469/Suppl_2/S329/3930861

The surface strength on comet 67P has been investigated in localized areas and values published in several papers. For instance, Vincent et al. (2015b) constrained the strength of material surrounding active pits, interpreted as sink holes; Groussin (2015) measured the strength of stable overhangs in selected areas of the comet; Biele et al. (2015) and Spohn et al. (2015) computed local strength, respectively, from the Philae lander bounce on Agilkia and the MUPUS measurements at Abydos. All authors agree on a typical tensile strength in the range 10–100 Pa, and a compressive strength in the kPa range for the dusty layer, up to a couple of MPa for the underlying consolidated material.

Thermal inertia and roughness of the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko from MIRO and VIRTIS observations.
Marshall, D. et al.
https://boris.unibe.ch/118280/1/aa33104-18.pdf

The resulting TI values from both instruments are broadly consistent with each other. From the millimetre channel on
MIRO, we determine the TI in the subsurface to be <80 JK⁻¹ m⁻² s^−0.5 for the Seth, Ash, and Aten regions. The submillimetre channel implies similar results but also suggests that higher values could be possible. A low TI is consistent with other MIRO measurements and in situ data from the MUPUS instrument at the final landing site of Philae. The VIRTIS results give a best fitting value of 80 JK⁻¹ m⁻² s^−0.5 and values in the range 40-160 JK⁻¹ m⁻² s^−0.5.

Thermal and mechanical properties of the near-surface layers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
Spohn, T. et al.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...berg/642a99cd4f5036b2235a9a84635a1c445e3b00e3

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.

Structure and elastic parameters of the near surface of Abydos site on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, as obtained by SESAME/CASSE listening to the MUPUS insertion phase.

Look at the strengths measured, and then refer back to the post by The Man, here;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12171304&postcount=1448

Properties of the 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko interior revealed by CONSERT radar
Kofman, W. et al.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6247/aab0639

Note the permittivity value of 1.27. Also note that the permittivity of vacuum is 1. And then refer to this;

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/relative-permittivity-d_1660.html

And this;

https://gpg.geosci.xyz/content/phys...mittivity_rocks.html#table-permittivity-rocks

And this;

https://gpg.geosci.xyz/content/phys...y_sediments.html#table-permittivity-sediments

And this;

https://gpg.geosci.xyz/content/phys...ity_minerals.html#table-permittivity-minerals

And this;

https://gpg.geosci.xyz/content/phys...ttivity_frozen.html#table-permittivity-frozen

The Deep Impact crater on 9P/Tempel-1 from Stardust-NExT
Schultz, P. H. et al.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019103512002473

Together, these observations indicate that the DI excavation crater diameter was about 200 m (±20 m), a value consistent with the ejected mass derived from Earth- and space-based observations with the assumption that this mass represents only 10–20% of the total ejected mass.

Then go and look for an online crater calculator, and see how big the crater would be in rock, for an object of ~ 370 kg, and an impact speed of ~ 10 km/s.

In summary, there is not a single shred of evidence for rock, and an absolute shed load that says that it isn't. Therefore, anybody who is suggesting it is rock is either lying, scientifically illiterate, or brainwashed by neo-Velikoskian con artists. Or a combination of all three.

Reality Check · Oct 16, 2018

An insane lie that anyone here is stupid enough to think comets are actual rock

Sol88 said:
cool so we are all calling it ROCK then?

17 October 2018: An insane lie that anyone here is stupid enough to think comets are actual rock.
We have been telling him for 9 years that we agree that comets are ices and dust and have the physical evidence to support this, e.g. their densities.

Sometimes astronomers label that ices and dust material rock and he goes crazy about that, e.g. 15 October 2018: Repeats his insane insult of A’Hearn, emphasizing his electric comet insanity.

Merged The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Share this page

ISF - Join now!