The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Another of Sol88's usual insane rants as seen for over 10 years now.
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 12 Feb 2020).

Sol88's repeated insanity of lying about his demented dogma that requires a massive solar electric field when he is ranting about smallish electric fields in comet coma.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

..

The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 12 Feb 2020).

Sol88's usual lies about science, comets and posters.

• An insane lie that our working model of jets is based on comets being mostly ices. We saw many jets from 67P and 67P may be as little as 17% ices.
• An insane lie that "Ion-neutral coupling is also called gas drag".
  Gas drag is a drag from a neutral gas. Sublimating ices produce neutral gas that drags dust upward.
  Ion-neutral coupling is ions interacting with neutral atoms molecules.
• An insane lie that anything in his posts states that ion-neutral coupling is also called gas drag.
  There are quotes from a couple of ices and dust comet papers about gas drag for gases sublimating from ices on the nucleus.
  On the ion-neutral coupling in cometary comae is about coma !
• I and jonesdave116 have been stating for years that evidence has been indicated that comets are not mostly ices.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Another of Sol88's usual insane rants as seen for over 10 years now.
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 12 Feb 2020).

Sol88's repeated insanity of lying about his demented dogma that requires a massive solar electric field when he is ranting about smallish electric fields in comet coma.

Even smaller Dude, nucleus surface electric fields!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 12 Feb 2020).

Sol88's usual lies about science, comets and posters.

• An insane lie that our working model of jets is based on comets being mostly ices. We saw many jets from 67P and 67P may be as little as 17% ices.
• An insane lie that "Ion-neutral coupling is also called gas drag".
  Gas drag is a drag from a neutral gas. Sublimating ices produce neutral gas that drags dust upward.
  Ion-neutral coupling is ions interacting with neutral atoms molecules.
• An insane lie that anything in his posts states that ion-neutral coupling is also called gas drag.
  There are quotes from a couple of ices and dust comet papers about gas drag for gases sublimating from ices on the nucleus.
  On the ion-neutral coupling in cometary comae is about coma !
• I and jonesdave116 have been stating for years that evidence has been indicated that comets are not mostly ices.

So comets are MOSTLY ROCK then?

Quote:

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material.

Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving
more toward mostly rock,

or Sublimating ices produce neutral gas that drags dust upward?? That's the dirtysnowball model, the first quantitative model.

This dust RC, is it charged?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So comets are MOSTLY ROCK then? or Sublimating ices produce neutral gas that drags dust upward?? That's the dirtysnowball model, the first quantitative model.

This dust RC, is it charged?

Nope. The dust gets charged in the coma. And has nothing whatsoever to do with the production of jets. How many times do you need telling? We know what the jets are. Neutral gas and dust. And sometimes ice. As observed. And stop lying about rock. There is none. Have you got anything that does not involve scientific impossibilities and lies?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Even smaller Dude, nucleus surface electric fields!

What surface electric fields? How are they formed? Why do they not form at asteroids, and turn them into comets? You are going over the same crap that has already been shown to be crap umpteen times. Give it a rest.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Shown to be a misinterpretation based on the fact comets were thought to BE MOSTLY ICE.


On the ion-neutral coupling in cometary comae



Ion-neutral coupling is also called gas drag, see above posts.

You and jd116 are living in the past!

No, we are living in the world of observed science. You, on the other hand, are lying and making up scientifically illiterate nonsense. Give up.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Sol88's persistent insanity of lying about irrelevant mainstream ices and dust cometary science as in The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 12 Feb 2020).

Sol88's current spate of stupidity is about charged dust in the coma of 67P.
Redistribution of particles across the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is about dust emitted from the surface of 67P falling back.

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Nope. The dust gets charged in the coma. And has nothing whatsoever to do with the production of jets. How many times do you need telling? We know what the jets are. Neutral gas and dust. And sometimes ice. As observed. And stop lying about rock. There is none. Have you got anything that does not involve scientific impossibilities and lies?

So, the dust in jd116s world only charges in the coma, right got it...

At what distance from the nucleus does the neutral dust turn to charged dust? Couple meters? Couple hundred meters? 1000’s?

This will be good for a laugh. Comets are mostly rock, says M.A’Hearn.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

You HAVE to include that the dust is CHARGED when trying to work out how jets work!

No you don't. We can see how jets work. If you think otherwise, then show us how it works, based on putative electric fields that are pointing the wrong way, and not reaching the surface anyway? SMH!!!!! Face it - your woo was impossible from the get go, having been dreamed up by people who have no clue about the relevant science, and had already ignored decades old evidence that showed them to be talking crap. You were suckered by it, due to being just as scientifically clueless as them. You were told this 15 years ago! And are still here, pushing the same impossible, unevidenced woo. It is pathetic.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So, the dust in jd116s world only charges in the coma, right got it...

At what distance from the nucleus does the neutral dust turn to charged dust? Couple meters? Couple hundred meters? 1000’s?

This will be good for a laugh.

The dust is a complete irrelevance. It has nothing to do with your failed woo. It shouldn't even be there in your woo. Fail, yes? Want me to quote the idiot Thornhill again?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

No, we are living in the world of observed science. You, on the other hand, are lying and making up scientifically illiterate nonsense. Give up.

There is no ion or for that matter electron coupling to cometary neutrals...That’s the Dirtysnowball model, which as you say is wrong.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

There is no ion or for that matter electron coupling to cometary neutrals...That’s the Dirtysnowball model, which as you say is wrong.

What the hell are you on about now? Try making sense for a change.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

The dust is a complete irrelevance. It has nothing to do with your failed woo. It shouldn't even be there in your woo. Fail, yes? Want me to quote the idiot Thornhill again?

Ahhhh, of no relevance. Right I can see were your problem is.

Go learn some dusty plasma physics, then get back to us.

You’ve already made a fool of yourself. No harm in keeping it up.

Shall I keep your quote agreeing the negatively charged dust follows the electrons?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ahhhh, of no relevance. Right I can see were your problem is.

Go learn some dusty plasma physics, then get back to us.

You’ve already made a fool of yourself. No harm in keeping it up.

Shall I keep your quote agreeing the negatively charged dust follows the electrons?

I know all I need to know about dusty plasma physics. I also know that there should be no dust in your woo. And this has nothing to do with jets of observed neutral gas and ice and dust. And nobody has ever claimed otherwise. Nobody with a knowledge of science, that is. You are the only one making a fool of themselves, due to a complete ignorance of any relevant science.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Shall I keep your quote agreeing the negatively charged dust follows the electrons?

Stop lying about what I said. I said - if it were negatively charged, and if it were sufficiently tiny enough to be affected by an electric field, it would follow the electrons. Which are retarded, yes? As per Deca, et al. The field is pointing in the wrong direction. As I quoted to you from the paper. Learn to read.

[Sol88]

So, the dust is negatively charged or it’s not Negatively charged. Which is it jonesdave116?


GIADA: shining a light on the monitoring of the comet dust production from the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526208

Just say’n jonesdave116, just say’n.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Stop lying about what I said. I said - if it were negatively charged, and if it were sufficiently tiny enough to be affected by an electric field, it would follow the electrons. Which are retarded, yes? As per Deca, et al. The field is pointing in the wrong direction. As I quoted to you from the paper. Learn to read.

From Deca, we have the charge seperation I’m after.

See Figure 1 in AFully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet


Electron channels, ay. Mmmm....

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

....

Usual lies about posts , demented questions and insane insult of M.A’Hearn.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Deluded gibberish.

ion-neutral coupling is plasma physics applicable to plasmas including cometary comae. Cometary comae are physical facts - clouds of plasmas surrounding comets !
On the ion-neutral coupling in cometary comae

Quote:

ABSTRACT
In a cometary coma, the ion-neutral decoupling distance, sometimes referred to as the ion exobase or collisionopause, can be defined as the cometocentric distance, rin, where ions, initially moving with the neutral outgassing speed, have a probability of 1/e of not colliding with neutrals on their subsequent journey radially outwards. We present an analytical model for calculating this decoupling distance in the presence of a static radial electric field. We show that for a logarithmically decaying potential, the value of rin can even decrease to ∼15 per cent of its field-free case value. Moreover, already at this distance, the effective ion speed can be expected to markedly exceed the neutral expansion velocity. These analytical results are in line with previous numerical calculations, adapting similar but not identical field profiles. The presence of a non-negligible ambipolar electric field and limited importance of ion-neutral collisional coupling are further supported by observations in the diamagnetic cavity of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko by plasma instruments onboard Rosetta that reveal ion speeds several times higher than the neutral expansion velocity.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's usual insane lies about his demented dogma which has no science, just deluded fantasies.

Sol88's insanity in this post is that "dusty plasma physics" is mainstream science not included in his demented dogma and not known by his cult's deluded and ignorant prophets (a mythologist, a "physicist" who has never done physics with a track record of lying and a retired electrical engineer).

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's usual demented questions and insane lies about science

GIADA: shining a light on the monitoring of the comet dust production from the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko does not say that all dust in the coma of 67P was negatively charged (Sol88's demented question). What the paper states is that GIADA detected dust that was charged by the spacecraft.

The two occurrences of charge:
"Different spatial distributions for the particle types suggest that emission processes and/or interactions with the coma depend on particle physical properties, such as charge, mass, and density."
"Fluffy particles are porous aggregates of submicron grains produced from the nucleus. They range in size from 0.2 to 2.5 mm and their equivalent bulk density is up to 1 kg m-3. They are charged, fragmented, and decelerated by the spacecraft negative potential and enter GIADA in showers of fragments at speeds <1 m s-1 (Fulle et al., 2015a)"

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Usual lies about posts , demented questions and insane insult of M.A’Hearn.

Insult to A’Hearn?

Mmmm...let’s have another look at what he said....

Quote:

(c) Whatarecometsmadeof? At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].

envisioned (imagine as a future possibility; visualize.) vs understanding (the ability to understand something; comprehension.), that insult?

Otherwise please show where the insult is...

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's "charge separation" insanity irrelevant to his demented dogma on comets.
Sol88's usual insane lies about science. As he has been told for years, comet coma are plasma, plasma has separated charges, i.e. "charge separation". Plasma physic is well understood mainstream science.
His insanity of just writing "charge separation" and expecting vague magic is obvious.

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet is on "three-dimensional fully kinetic simulations of the solar wind interaction with comet 67P/Churyumov".

Quote:

Abstract
The cometary mission Rosetta has shown the presence of higher-than-expected suprathermal electron fluxes. In this study, using 3D fully kinetic electromagnetic simulations of the interaction of the solar wind with a comet, we constrain the kinetic mechanism that is responsible for the bulk electron energization that creates the suprathermal distribution from the warm background of solar wind electrons. We identify and characterize the magnetic field-aligned ambipolar electric field that ensures quasi-neutrality and traps warm electrons. Solar wind electrons are accelerated to energies as high as 50–70 eV close to the comet nucleus without the need for wave–particle or turbulent heating mechanisms. We find that the accelerating potential controls the parallel electron temperature, total density, and (to a lesser degree) the perpendicular electron temperature and the magnetic field magnitude. Our self-consistent approach enables us to better understand the underlying plasma processes that govern the near-comet plasma environment.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's usual lies about posts and demented questions.
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 12 Feb 2020). +
Sol88's 12 Feb 2020 lies about science, comets and posters - we know how jets work, "Ion-neutral coupling is also called gas drag" lie, lies about his posts !, lies about our posts!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 spews out his insane insult of M.A’Hearn yet again.
The insanity of this insult is fully described in The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma (updated 13 Feb 2020).
Takes a little digging because Sol88 has been spewing out hundreds of deluded posts for almost 11 years which I have been trying to recording for the world to laugh at or be aghast at the demented depth of his comet & Sun insanity but
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn by Sol88 linking him with demented dogma, etc.
Additional insanity is Sol88 always lying about what Sol88 means by "rock" which in Sol88's demented dogma is actual rock blasted from rocky planets, etc. The insanity gets worse when Sol88 lies about M.A’Hearn's paper which explicitly debunks part of Sol88's demented dogma!

When M.A’Hearn wrote refractory material or rock, M.A’Hearn meant what all astronomers mean - a mixture of dust and ices gathered when comets formed in the early solar system and during their history.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

When any astronomer writes "rock" in the context of comets, it is an insult to say they mean actual rock because astronomers know the 70 years of evidence that comets are not rock ! It becomes especially insane when Michael F. A’Hearn has hundreds of papers on ices and dust comets. It is more insane because Sol88 cherry picks A’Hearn's last paper and adds deluded highlights. A bit more insanity because A’Hearn is dead and obviously cannot defend himself against Sol88's insults. More insanity because Sol88 quote mines A’Hearn's paper which debunks Sol88's demented dogma by stating the evidence supported origin of comets.
Comets: looking ahead by Michael F. A’Hearn

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Sol88's "charge separation" insanity irrelevant to his demented dogma on comets.
Sol88's usual insane lies about science. As he has been told for years, comet coma are plasma, plasma has separated charges, i.e. "charge separation". Plasma physic is well understood mainstream science.
His insanity of just writing "charge separation" and expecting vague magic is obvious.

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet is on "three-dimensional fully kinetic simulations of the solar wind interaction with comet 67P/Churyumov".

Figure 1 in the above paper says you are wrong rc, not surprisingly.

Quote:

Aspatialseparationoftheparticlesofcometaryoriginca nbeseeninthedensityprofiles

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88's usual insane les (presumably). He has been lying about scientific papers for over 10 years now and there is no reason to think that he will ever tell the truth about any paper.

Sol88's "charge separation" insanity irrelevant to his demented dogma on comets.
The paper is behind a paywall. If Sol88 has paid for the paper or found a free download he can supply it or this "Figure 1" he is presumably lying about.

Sol88 lies about what he quotes. "A spatial separation of the particles of cometary origin can be seen in the density profiles" does not say charge separation.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Sol88's usual insane les (presumably). He has been lying about scientific papers for over 10 years now and there is no reason to think that he will ever tell the truth about any paper.

Sol88's "charge separation" insanity irrelevant to his demented dogma on comets.
The paper is behind a paywall. If Sol88 has paid for the paper or found a free download he can supply it or this "Figure 1" he is presumably lying about.

Sol88 lies about what he quotes. "A spatial separation of the particles of cometary origin can be seen in the density profiles" does not say charge separation.

The particles are electrons (-) and Ions (+) these are charged particles.

Spatial, relating to the position, area, and size of things:

Separation a situation in which two or more people or things are separated:

So, yup charge separation. Just as I've said all along!

[Sol88]

Quote:

When M.A’Hearn wrote refractory material or rock, M.A’Hearn meant what all astronomers mean - a mixture of dust and ices gathered when comets formed in the early solar system and during their history.

Reality Check


M.A’Hearn meant what all astronomers mean????

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Emphasizes Sol88 lies about what he quotes. "A spatial separation of the particles of cometary origin can be seen in the density profiles" does not say charge separation.
Charge separation would be a separation of electrons and ions, not general particles.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 spews out his insane insult of M.A’Hearn yet again.

Sol88's insanely extends his insane insult of M.A’Hearn to all astronomers.
When any astronomer writes "rock" in the context of comets, it is an insult to say they mean actual rock because astronomers know the [over] 70 years of evidence that comets are not rock !
When Whipple wrote his original papers 70 years ago, he based his model o the already measured properties of comets.

This is evidence that has been explained to Sol88 for over 10 years but he denies because he is a blind follower of a demented cult that believes that comets are rock blasted from planets by electrical discharges between planets, etc. No sane knowledgeable person will believe that. Astronomers are sane and knowledgeable

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Emphasizes Sol88 lies about what he quotes. "A spatial separation of the particles of cometary origin can be seen in the density profiles" does not say charge separation.
Charge separation would be a separation of electrons and ions, not general particles.

General particles of what?

Got me real interested in what general particles are now, please go ahead and explain to this numpty what Deca's spatial separation of general particles are.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Demented question about Sol88 lies about what he quotes. "A spatial separation of the particles of cometary origin can be seen in the density profiles" does not say charge separation.
No separation of ions from electrons in the quote, just "particles" in general. It could even be just electrons or just ions or just neutrals !

[Sol88]

Ok, got it!

Quote:

We observe a spatial separation of the cometary electrons with respect to the cometary ions, and of the solar wind electrons with respect to the solar wind protons. Cometary electrons eventually end up neutralizing the solar wind protons, and solar wind electrons eventually neutralize the cometary ions.

Electron and Ion Dynamics of the Solar Wind Interaction
with a Weakly Outgassing Comet Jan Deca AND general particles of Reality Check.

Anywhoo, we have spatial separation of general particles including electron (-) and Ions (+). This is required for the ELECTRIC COMET.

along with a MOSTLY ROCKY nucleus, not ALL ROCK but MOSTLY ROCK. As stated by M.A'Hearn.

[Sol88]

Quote:

When M.A’Hearn wrote refractory material or rock, M.A’Hearn meant what all astronomers mean - a mixture of dust and ices gathered when comets formed in the early solar system and during their history.

Reality Check


Mmmmmmm...Ah, not just mostly rock but bedrock!

Quote:

The surface of 67P/C-G is generally broken into rough and smooth terrains (e.g. Auger et al. 2015; La Forgia et al. 2015; Giacomini et al. 2016; Pajola et al. 2016b). The rough terrain is predominantly exposed bedrock, while the smooth terrain represents disaggregated, transported remnants of formerly consolidated bedrock (Sierks et al. 2015).

Quote:

6 SUMMARY
Our geomorphologic mapping reveals a complex terrain of consolidated bedrock material overlain by sedimentary deposits. The northern half of the nucleus is covered in sedimentary materials, while the landscapes of the Southern hemisphere are relatively free of sediment, revealing the underlying bedrock of the nucleus.

Putative flow deposits are located around the equatorial regions, suggesting that sediment transport processes and landscape evolution occur on 67P/C-G by insolation-driven processes.

Geomorphology of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko Samuel P. D. Birch

So another astronomer that meant ice and dust?

Geewiz this sublimation of hidden ice is able to bedrock to refractory dust! Now that's majic!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So, the dust is negatively charged or it’s not Negatively charged. Which is it jonesdave116?


GIADA: shining a light on the monitoring of the comet dust production from the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526208

Just say’n jonesdave116, just say’n.

You are saying nothing. The dust should not be there in your woo. Fail. Whether some of it is charged or not, has zero relevance to your woo. Fail.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

From Deca, we have the charge seperation I’m after.

See Figure 1 in AFully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet


Electron channels, ay. Mmmm....

Stop lying. I already quoted you a passage from a paper, including Deca as a co-author, in which they state that quasi-neutrality is maintained. As expected by anybody with even a passing knowledge of plasma physics.
And all of which is totally irrelevant to your failed woo. Show, scientifically, how any non-existent large scale charge separation, can cause EDM (lol). Show us how the impossible EDM (lol) fails to show up in the magnetometer data. Can't do it, can you (rhetorical)? Because it is scientifically impossible.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

The particles are electrons (-) and Ions (+) these are charged particles.

Spatial, relating to the position, area, and size of things:

Separation a situation in which two or more people or things are separated:

So, yup charge separation. Just as I've said all along!

Wrong. Any idiot can understand that they are saying that the various ions and electrons from different sources are separated. Overall, there is no large scale separation. Quasi-neutrality is maintained.
There is no Fig. 1 in the linked 'paper', as it is a conference presentation. However, they reference two papers, by Deca and Divin. I have already quoted the relevant passage from the latter paper, which also references the Deca paper. Here it is again, for the hard of reading;

Quote:

In the case of a weakly outgassing comet the solar wind electrons move to balance the positively charged cometary ions (Deca et al. 2017). In order to maintain quasi-neutrality, i.e., to increase the solar wind electron density in regions where the cometary ion density is substantially higher, a strong parallel electric field needs to be generated to locally and temporarily trap electrons.

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet
Divin, A. et al (2020)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...13/ab6662/meta

So, your claims of large scale charge separation are either based on a lie, or on a complete inability to understand the relevant science. Which is it?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Reality Check


Mmmmmmm...Ah, not just mostly rock but bedrock!





Geomorphology of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko Samuel P. D. Birch

So another astronomer that meant ice and dust?

Geewiz this sublimation of hidden ice is able to bedrock to refractory dust! Now that's majic!

And more lies about non-existent rock. For the squillionth time, there is no rock at comets. Never been seen, never been detected. There are zero papers reporting the detection of rock. This is a flat out lie by Sol. If it weren't, he could point to the paper that details what sort of rock it is, how it was detected, and by which instrument. Every time he is asked to do that, he runs away. And then repeats the lie as if the question was never asked.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Geomorphology of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko Samuel P. D. Birch

So another astronomer that meant ice and dust?

Geewiz this sublimation of hidden ice is able to bedrock to refractory dust! Now that's majic!

Whoops! Slipped up there, haven't you? You can lie all you like about what A'Hearn meant, because he is sadly no longer with us, and therefore unable to defend himself from your lies. Birch et al, however, are presumably all very much alive and contactable. Want to repeat the lie again? And then I can email the scientist that you are insulting.