The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[Reality Check]

An insane delusion that any "cometary Electrons and Ions" have been found leaving the comet nucleus.

What has been detected leaving the comet nucleus is neutral gas from sublimating ices which becomes partially ionized. This is confirmed by the fact that measured ionization drops as we get closer to the nucleus. Ionization is belong caused by something external to the nucleus and a mechanism is photoionization.

Note that ins Sol88's demented mind, ionization has to be basically constant and perhaps complete (not a 1 atom in a million) because all of these electrons and ions are being magically created on the nucleus by his insane EDM or eclectic discharges between the Sun and come rom the Sun! Then more the magic happens to eject them! Even more the magic happens to eject the million other neutral atoms for each ionized atom!

[Reality Check]

Sol88 persists with his year old "very little ice" insanity about the Pätzold et. al. paper.
The Nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko – Part I: The global view – nucleus mass, mass-loss, porosity, and implications
"The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice." is not Sol88 and his demented cult's insanity of actual rock as the sentence makes clear.
That "very little ice" is a "dust-to-ice mass ratio F nucleus for the nucleus body" of 3 to 7. A child can understand that makes 67P 33% to 14% ice. That "very little" is a lot! Pätzold et. al may mean very little compared to say Tempel 1 with 20% to 50% of water ice.

[jonesdave116]

I've come to the conclusion that Sol88 is a bot, invented by T & T circa 2005, and let loose on the interweb. It has since taken on a life of its own, whilst retaining the major characteristics of its inventors; lying, obfuscating, gish-galloping, and a complete lack of any relevant scientific knowledge.
You know it makes sense More sense than the electric comet, anyway.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Liar. No rock. It doesn't matter how many times you lie about it, it isn't there. Grow up. And there is zero chance the comet was formed in the inner solar system.



Learn to spell. Something else they teach at school, along with science.

The nuclear spin temperatures of H₂O show that the ice from which the H₂O comes formed at temperatures ~ < 50 K. And there is also the N₂, which constrains it to less than ~ 30 K.
Do you know the temperature in the inner solar system? Guess what it isn't.

WATER PRODUCTION RATES, ROTATIONAL TEMPERATURES, AND SPIN TEMPERATURES IN COMETS C/1999 H1 (LEE), C/1999 S4, AND C/2001 A2
Dello Russo, N. et al (2005) (another paper predating your woo)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/427473/pdf

Molecular nitrogen in comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko indicates a low formation temperature
Rubin, M. et al. (2015) (5 years ago!)
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01346031/document

So, you can lie and obfuscate all you like. The evidence says you are wrong.

Me telling porkies??

No you are calling the following liar's???


Alice Lucchetti1
Luca Penasa
Maurizio Pajola
Matteo Massironi
Maria Teresa Brunetti
Gabriele Cremonese
Nilda Oklay
Jean-Baptiste Vincent
Stefano Mottola
Sonia Fornasier
Holger Sierks
Giampiero Naletto
Philippe L. Lamy
Rafael Rodrigo
Detlef Koschny
Bjorn Davidsson
Cesare Barbieri
Maria Antonietta Barucci
Jean-Loup Bertaux
Ivano Bertini
Dennis Bodewits
Pamela Cambianica
Vania Da Deppo
Stefano Debei
Mariolino De Cecco
Jacob Deller
Sabrina Ferrari
Francesca Ferri
Marco Franceschi
Marco Fulle
Pedro Gutiérrez
Carsten Güttler
Wing-H. Ip
Uwe Keller
Luisa Lara
Monica Lazzarin
Jose Lopez Moreno
Francesco Marzari
Cecilia Tubiana

All authors of the following paper...
The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Are all liar's? Big call!

Ummmm....

Quote:

Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces.

Landslides on 67P reveal a clear rocky-type behaviour for cometary material that, once collapsed, assumes a rock avalanche mobilization associated to relatively high friction coefficients.

[Sol88]

Consolidated surfaces of rocky-type cometary material, just like tusenfem's , also a liar I guess by jonesy definition, Meteroric matrix!


11 CONCLUSIONS

Quote:

The classical model of comets as dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950) has
focused most models of comets on ices.

The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear. With 67P’s dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside.

Marco Fulle,
N. Altobelli
B. Buratti
M. Choukroun
M. Fulchignoni
E. Gr¨un
M. G. G. T. Taylor
P. Weissman

All liars!

And the BIGGEST liar of them all A'Hearn

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, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].

Poor jonesy, knickers all bunched up!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Me telling porkies??

No you are calling the following liar's???


Alice Lucchetti1
Luca Penasa
Maurizio Pajola
Matteo Massironi
Maria Teresa Brunetti
Gabriele Cremonese
Nilda Oklay
Jean-Baptiste Vincent
Stefano Mottola
Sonia Fornasier
Holger Sierks
Giampiero Naletto
Philippe L. Lamy
Rafael Rodrigo
Detlef Koschny
Bjorn Davidsson
Cesare Barbieri
Maria Antonietta Barucci
Jean-Loup Bertaux
Ivano Bertini
Dennis Bodewits
Pamela Cambianica
Vania Da Deppo
Stefano Debei
Mariolino De Cecco
Jacob Deller
Sabrina Ferrari
Francesca Ferri
Marco Franceschi
Marco Fulle
Pedro Gutiérrez
Carsten Güttler
Wing-H. Ip
Uwe Keller
Luisa Lara
Monica Lazzarin
Jose Lopez Moreno
Francesco Marzari
Cecilia Tubiana

All authors of the following paper...
The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Are all liar's? Big call!

Ummmm....

Is yet another lie. None of those authors are retarded enough to believe there is rock at the comet! That is just your inability to understand the paper. I have already explained to you, in a way that even a ten year old could understand; if the cliffs and overhangs were rock, they would not collapse under that gravity. They would be too strong. And rock does not leave behind pristine ice on cliff faces. And it does not produce boulders containing ice.
So, you can quit with the lies about what those authors are saying. Do you ever stop lying?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Consolidated surfaces of rocky-type cometary material, just like tusenfem's , also a liar I guess by jonesy definition, Meteroric matrix!


11 CONCLUSIONS


Marco Fulle,
N. Altobelli
B. Buratti
M. Choukroun
M. Fulchignoni
E. Gr¨un
M. G. G. T. Taylor
P. Weissman

All liars!

And the BIGGEST liar of them all A'Hearn



Poor jonesy, knickers all bunched up!

And more lies. None of those authors are suggesting the comet is made of rock. They are not that stupid. It is very easy - link to the paper where rock is detected. Which instrument? What sort of rock? What was its strength? Thermal inertia? Dielectric properties? Density? You can't because it doesn't exist. Hence all the lies.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Are all liar's? Big call!

Grow a pair and email any one of them. Ask them if they think the landslides are rock. You won't, because you know what the answer will be. So, you just waste our time with your idiocy.

[jonesdave116]

So, I was finally forced to read the whole of the paper that Sol thinks is suggesting that the landslides are of rock. And then claiming that I am calling the authors liars. I am not. He is;

Any highlighting is mine (obviously!)

Quote:

The different morphologies observed on 67P are hypothesized to be the result of regional to local variations of the volatile content (Vincent et al., 2015), differently processed by the diurnal and seasonal insolation changes while approaching perihelion. Our observations support this interpretation, suggesting that different H/L values of landslides on 67P can be expression of different volatile contents within the collapsed material. Indeed, volatiles that are released by sublimating cliffs during the gravitational event might facilitate longer landslides runouts length trough overpressure at the sliding surface. We point out that other dissipative processes, possibly sublimation‐driven, could in principle be at the origin of the unusually high H/L values, but they are of difficult evaluation due to the lack of previous studies on cometary landslides. For this reason, we limited our interpretation to factors that are known to exert a strong control on runout distances and are common to any landslide on all planetary bodies.
Therefore, we indicate that lower values of H/L are representative of a higher concentration of volatile translating in longer landslides runouts, while higher H/L values reflect a smaller content of volatiles hence resulting in shorter landslide runouts. These values imply that for comets, different H/L values can be used as an indicator of the different localized volatile content that fosters the material to slide nearer or farther from the scarp face.

Yawn. How predictable. He never read the paper.

The Rocky‐Like Behavior of Cometary Landslides on 67P/Churyumov‐Gerasimenko
Lucchetti, A. et al. (2019)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2019GL085132 (paywalled version)

https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10...Rocky-like.pdf (free version; directly opens pdf)

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

So, I was finally forced to read the whole of the paper that Sol thinks is suggesting that the landslides are of rock. And then claiming that I am calling the authors liars. I am not. He is;

Any highlighting is mine (obviously!)



Yawn. How predictable. He never read the paper.

The Rocky‐Like Behavior of Cometary Landslides on 67P/Churyumov‐Gerasimenko
Lucchetti, A. et al. (2019)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2019GL085132 (paywalled version)

https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10...Rocky-like.pdf (free version; directly opens pdf)

Yup and they concluded

Quote:

By assuming the height to runout length as an
approximation for the friction coefficient of landslide material, we find that on comet 67P, this ratio falls between 0.50 and 0.97. Given that the 67P high friction coefficients are comparable, or even exceed, those found on Earth dry landslides (Legros, 2002), this implies a mechanically rocky-type behaviour for the cometary material.

Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces.

Landslides on 67P reveal a clear rocky-type behaviour for cometary material that, once collapsed, assumes a rock avalanche mobilization associated to relatively high friction coefficients. This behaviour agrees with the refractory to ice ratio estimated from grains ejected from 67P (Fulle et al., 2019).

So yeah,

Quote:

Therefore, we indicate that lower values of H/L are representative of a higher concentration of volatile translating in longer landslides runouts, while higher H/L values reflect a smaller content of volatiles hence resulting in shorter landslide runouts.

a low H/L would indicate comets are icy bodies, problem is they have a high H/L ratio and therefore

Given that the 67P high friction coefficients are comparable, or even exceed, those found on Earth dry landslides (Legros, 2002), this implies
a mechanically rocky-type behaviour for the cometary material.

but if you never even bother to read the papers...

So, stop calling

Marco Fulle,
N. Altobelli
B. Buratti
M. Choukroun
M. Fulchignoni
E. Gr¨un
M. G. G. T. Taylor
P. Weissman
Alice Lucchetti1
Luca Penasa
Maurizio Pajola
Matteo Massironi
Maria Teresa Brunetti
Gabriele Cremonese
Nilda Oklay
Jean-Baptiste Vincent
Stefano Mottola
Sonia Fornasier
Holger Sierks
Giampiero Naletto
Philippe L. Lamy
Rafael Rodrigo
Detlef Koschny
Bjorn Davidsson
Cesare Barbieri
Maria Antonietta Barucci
Jean-Loup Bertaux
Ivano Bertini
Dennis Bodewits
Pamela Cambianica
Vania Da Deppo
Stefano Debei
Mariolino De Cecco
Jacob Deller
Sabrina Ferrari
Francesca Ferri
Marco Franceschi
Marco Fulle
Pedro Gutiérrez
Carsten Güttler
Wing-H. Ip
Uwe Keller
Luisa Lara
Monica Lazzarin
Jose Lopez Moreno
Francesco Marzari
Cecilia Tubiana


and

M.A'Hearn

Liars!

Not me saying comets are rocky they are and you are calling them incompetent and liars, or are you just a slow a learner, jonesdave116!

game, set and match really!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Grow a pair and email any one of them. Ask them if they think the landslides are rock. You won't, because you know what the answer will be. So, you just waste our time with your idiocy.

Your job champ.

I believe them.

you dont and you call them liars...

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

Sol88 shows how deep his decades of insanity is yet again.
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 31 Mar 2020 to add his demented lies about electric discharges).

This post: Sol88 is the insane liar in this thread who has been lying about mainstream ices and dust papers for many years and insanely insulting astronomers for a couple of years.
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's demented dogma, etc.
[url="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13041646#post13041646"]Sol88 goes utterly insane by listing authors of a mainstream ices and dust paper[/URL]
Next post: Sol88 goes utterly insane by listing authors of another mainstream ices and dust paper!

[Reality Check]

Sol88 goes utterly insane by listing authors of a mainstream ices and dust paper.

He accuses of them being as utterly deluded as him by believing that comets are actual rock as in his demented dogma !
He is insanely lying about the paper. There are no rocks in the paper which he has never read

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Yawn. How predictable. He never read the paper.

The Rocky‐Like Behavior of Cometary Landslides on 67P/Churyumov‐Gerasimenko
Lucchetti, A. et al. (2019)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2019GL085132 (paywalled version)

https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10...Rocky-like.pdf (free version; directly opens pdf)

He is doubly insane because the abstract of the paper has "rocky‐type mechanical behavior". To anyone with a brain cell that is a comparison. The abstract is clear. Images of 67P show landslides whose height to runout length is "akin to Earth dry landslides". The ice and dust grains on 67P are rolling downhill like dry dirt or rocks on Earth.
He is triply insane because the abstract of the paper ends with "The variability of the runout length among 67P landslides can be attributed to the different volatile content located in the top few meters of the cometary crust, which can drive the mass movement.". To anyone with a brain cell that volatile content in a mainstream paper is the ices on an ices and dust comet
He is 4 times insane . He has been citing papers stating what that volatile content of 67P is! It is at least 14% or 17% ices and the rest dust.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

And more lies. None of those authors are suggesting the comet is made of rock. They are not that stupid. It is very easy - link to the paper where rock is detected. Which instrument? What sort of rock? What was its strength? Thermal inertia? Dielectric properties? Density? You can't because it doesn't exist. Hence all the lies.

What are they suggesting, smarty pants?

This will be an exercise in ad hoc fairetale made up codswallop.

Go, jonesdave116 what were they SUGGESTING?

This link not good enough?

Quote:

By assuming the height to runout length as an
approximation for the friction coefficient of landslide material, we find that on comet 67P, this ratio falls between 0.50 and 0.97. Given that the 67P high friction coefficients are comparable, or even exceed, those found on Earth dry landslides (Legros, 2002), this implies a mechanically rocky-type behaviour for the cometary material. Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces.

The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Or this one

Quote:

Though the post-impact spectrum is still being analyzed, it shows that Tempel 1's ejecta contain the following chemicals: smectite clay; iron-containing compounds; carbonates, the minerals in seashells; crystallized silicates, such as the green olivine minerals found on beaches and in the gemstone peridot; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are carbon-containing compounds found in car exhaust and on burnt toast.

Tempel 1's Secret Ingredients Revealed

maybe you'd think they are all wrong and you are right?

Or do you need it spelled out for you?

as in like Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces.

What is a consolidated surface, jonesdave116? Seems we have a very differnet idea on waht a consolidated surface is.

I'm think standard definition for consolidated

Quote:

brought together into a single whole.
having become solid, firm, or coherent.

As opposed to highly porous, as if in the standard definition

Quote:

full of pores.

Mainstream cant even make up their mind, so you have NO HOPE working stuff out for yourself I see jonesdave116!

[Reality Check]

Sol88 goes utterly insane by listing authors of another mainstream ices and dust paper.

He is doubly insane because he does not cite the paper.
He is 3 times insane because what he quotes is that 67P is made of ices and dusty not his demented dogma of actual rock.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

but if you never even bother to read the papers...

I read the paper you clown. The difference is that I understand it. Which part of what I highlighted is beyond your intellectual capabilities to understand? You are an outright liar, and a troll. A waste of space. Your religious-like belief in scientific impossibilities is pathetic. Every single time, you have to lie to try to claim something matches your idiotic woo, when it is easily shown to be a lie. As I did above.

Which part of the following is beyond your reading age?

Quote:

The variation of friction coefficients measured on 67P is not due to different inclination of the slopes from which material falls since the gravitational slopes of the considered cliffs are all similar (supporting information). We therefore suggest that the range of H/L values of 67P (between 0.50 and 0.97) can be explained by variations in the volatile content within the top few meters of the comet surface.

So stop lying, you clown. It is bloody obvious to everybody.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Go, jonesdave116 what were they SUGGESTING?

I just told you you idiot. They spell it out quite clearly. Although, apparently, not clearly enough for the hard of thinking. The runout values are dependent on the volatile content. Know what volatiles they are referring to? Huh? Do I need to explain that as well? Ice. As they bloody well state for anybody with a reading age above six to understand.

[Reality Check]

Sol88 goes insane yet again with demented lies about posts and posters.
jonesdave116 wrote So, I was finally forced to read the whole of the paper...quotes from the paper content... and Sol88 insanely accuses him of not reading papers !

Sol88 is doubly insane because he confirms that he has never read the paper by quoting the abstract again. Utterly insane highlighting of "implies a mechanically rocky-type behaviour" because this does not say that comets are the actual rock in Sol88's demented dogma. Anyone with a brain knows that rocky-type is a comparison.

[jonesdave116]

So, from Sol's list of authors, here are Pajola, Oklay, Vincent, Keller, Barbieri, Tubiana, Penasa, Mottola, Sierks & Massironi (Oh, and A'Hearn, just for good measure!) authoring another paper;

The pristine interior of comet 67P revealed by the combined Aswan outburst and cliff collapse
Pajola, M. et al. (2017)
https://kar.kent.ac.uk/61744/1/Pajol...SCL-merged.pdf

From the abstract:

Quote:

On 10 July 2015 the Rosetta Navigation Camera captured a large plume of dust that could be traced back to an area encompassing the Aswan escarpment [7]. Five days later, the OSIRIS camera observed a fresh, sharp and bright edge on the Aswan cliff. Here we report the first unambiguous link between an outburst and a cliff collapse on a comet. We establish a new dust-plume formation mechanism that does not necessarily require the breakup of pressurised crust or the presence of super volatile material, as suggested by previous studies [7]. Moreover, the collapse revealed the fresh icy interior of the comet, which is characterised by an albedo > 0.4, and provided the opportunity to study how the crumbling wall settled down forming a new talus.

So, yeah, those people obviously think the comet is rock!

[jonesdave116]

And here is another one with many of the same authors (including A'Hearn!);

Tensile strength of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko nucleus material from overhangs
Attree, N. et al. (2018)
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/fu...a32155-17.html

Abstract;

Quote:

We directly measured twenty overhanging cliffs on the surface of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko extracted from the latest shape model and estimated the minimum tensile strengths needed to support them against collapse under the comet’s gravity. We find extremely low strengths of around 1 Pa or less (1 to 5 Pa, when scaled to a metre length). The presence of eroded material at the base of most overhangs, as well as the observed collapse of two features and the implied previous collapse of another, suggests that they are prone to failure and that the true material strengths are close to these lower limits (although we only consider static stresses and not dynamic stress from, for example, cometary activity). Thus, a tensile strength of a few pascals is a good approximation for the tensile strength of the 67P nucleus material, which is in agreement with previous work. We find no particular trends in overhang properties either with size over the ~10–100 m range studied here or location on the nucleus. There are no obvious differences, in terms of strength, height or evidence of collapse, between the populations of overhangs on the two cometary lobes, suggesting that 67P is relatively homogenous in terms of tensile strength. Low material strengths are supportive of cometary formation as a primordial rubble pile or by collisional fragmentation of a small body (tens of km).

Now, what is the tensile strength of rock? Granite, sandstone, basalt...... pick one. I don't care which.

[Reality Check]

Sol88 shows insane he is with his persistent, insane lies about and insults of posters.

This insane lie is that jonesdave116 called the authors of mainstream ices and dust papers liars which never happened. No astronomer has published any paper stating that planetary rock (as in Sol88's demented dogma) has been detected in comets. Astronomers use standard terms such as "rock" to describe cometary features in papers because they know other astronomers understand that comets are made of ices and dust consolidated into material under low gravity.
Extremely few astronomers know about Sol88 insanity or his cult's demented dogma. The few astronomers that stumble across the "electric comets/universe" delusion quickly see that that is just a bunch of cranks with deluded, ignorant fantasies. See tusenfem's and Tim Thompson's posts here.

Sol88 is so insane that he vomits hundreds of insane insults that astronomers are writing about his demented dogma when they do not know about it and are not insane enough to think comets are rocks because they know the physical facts about comets (density, etc.)! Sol88 has been insane enough to believe for decades and shows he is utterly insane by believing in the really demented other parts of the dogma that we have listed many times..

[Reality Check]

Most of the recent insanity from Sol88:

1. Sol88's demented lie about "A fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration..." only using electric fields.
2. Sol88 demonstrates how utterly insane he is by expanding his demented delusion that comets have less water then asteroids
3. Sol88 emphasizes his insanity with an image of the expected change in topology of Tempel 1. Deep Impact on Temple 1 shows insane he is.
4. Sol88 quotes a definition of electric discharge from Wikipedia that shows he is a deluded liar
5. Next post: Sol88 doubles up on his insane lying. There are no electrical discharges in the paper.
6. Many cases of Sol88 being a coward, a liar and land running away from changing his delusions into science, e.g. evidence for electric discharges on comets.
   jonesdave116: So where are these discharges? Show me the detection, and stop running away
   jonesdave116: When are you going to grow a pair, and actually email Deca, instead of lying about his paper
7. A new deranged lie by quote mining with no source a 15 year old newspaper article!
8. Sol88 confirms his insanity that A'Hearn stated that comets are actual rocks by quoting A'Hearn stating that Tempel 1 had "snowbank" outer layers.
9. Sol88's insanity of citing a 15 year old clays and carbonates finding that is explained and indirectly confirmed by A'Hearn.
10. An insane delusion that any "cometary Electrons and Ions" have been found leaving the comet nucleus.
11. Sol88 persists with his year old "very little ice" insanity about the Pätzold et. al. paper.
12. Sol88 goes utterly insane by listing authors of a mainstream ices and dust paper.
13. Sol88 goes utterly insane by listing authors of another mainstream ices and dust paper.
14. Sol88 goes insane yet again with demented lies about posts and posters
15. Sol88 shows insane he is with his persistent, insane lies about and insults of posters (insanity that jonesdave116 called authors liars)
16. Confirms his complete insanity by saying that Tensile strength of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko nucleus material from overhangs (19 March 2018) is "succeeded" by a paper not on the tensile strength of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko nucleus material and published on 07 September 2016
    Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view has 1 mention of tensile strength when talking about pits.

16 items of insanity in a few days - looks like Sol88 is trying to establish a record in making himself obviously insane to anyone reading this thread.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

I read the paper you clown. The difference is that I understand it. Which part of what I highlighted is beyond your intellectual capabilities to understand? You are an outright liar, and a troll. A waste of space. Your religious-like belief in scientific impossibilities is pathetic. Every single time, you have to lie to try to claim something matches your idiotic woo, when it is easily shown to be a lie. As I did above.

Which part of the following is beyond your reading age?



So stop lying, you clown. It is bloody obvious to everybody.

Ummmm...

Quote:

This is indeed testified by the ubiquitous presence of fractures on all the cliffs from which landslides formed (thermal cracking has been suggested to be one of the triggers mechanisms of a cliff collapse, Pajola et al., 2017) meaning that the collapsed material of 67P is cohesive and well consolidated once detached.

The calculated mean landslide apparent friction angle of 34°, is considerably higher than the values (14°) reported for fractured rock mass in other context (Quantin et al., 2044; Brunetti et al., 2014) and more comparable to those of pristine

rocks

such as sandstones, siltstones, gneisses and slates (from 27 to 34°), or basalts, granites and, limestones (from 34° to 40°) (Wyllie & Mah, 2005). This comparison indicates that the cometary material is characterised by a high to medium internal friction coefficient. All these results make 67P a very peculiar

Which by the way, we also DETECTED USING SPTIZER of smectite clay; iron-containing compounds; carbonates, crystallized silicates, such as the green olivine and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

So, yeah

Not sure how I respond to your lack of comprehension jonesdave116!

All that mumbo jumbo about comets being ROCKY is succinctly put here

Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces.

or so say

Marco Fulle,
N. Altobelli
B. Buratti
M. Choukroun
M. Fulchignoni
E. Gr¨un
M. G. G. T. Taylor
P. Weissman
Alice Lucchetti1
Luca Penasa
Maurizio Pajola
Matteo Massironi
Maria Teresa Brunetti
Gabriele Cremonese
Nilda Oklay
Jean-Baptiste Vincent
Stefano Mottola
Sonia Fornasier
Holger Sierks
Giampiero Naletto
Philippe L. Lamy
Rafael Rodrigo
Detlef Koschny
Bjorn Davidsson
Cesare Barbieri
Maria Antonietta Barucci
Jean-Loup Bertaux
Ivano Bertini
Dennis Bodewits
Pamela Cambianica
Vania Da Deppo
Stefano Debei
Mariolino De Cecco
Jacob Deller
Sabrina Ferrari
Francesca Ferri
Marco Franceschi
Marco Fulle
Pedro Gutiérrez
Carsten Güttler
Wing-H. Ip
Uwe Keller
Luisa Lara
Monica Lazzarin
Jose Lopez Moreno
Francesco Marzari
Cecilia Tubiana


Surely not all of them are liars???

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ummmm...



Which by the way, we also DETECTED USING SPTIZER of smectite clay; iron-containing compounds; carbonates, crystallized silicates, such as the green olivine and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

So, yeah

Not sure how I respond to your lack of comprehension jonesdave116!

All that mumbo jumbo about comets being ROCKY is succinctly put here

Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces.

or so say

Marco Fulle,
N. Altobelli
B. Buratti
M. Choukroun
M. Fulchignoni
E. Gr¨un
M. G. G. T. Taylor
P. Weissman
Alice Lucchetti1
Luca Penasa
Maurizio Pajola
Matteo Massironi
Maria Teresa Brunetti
Gabriele Cremonese
Nilda Oklay
Jean-Baptiste Vincent
Stefano Mottola
Sonia Fornasier
Holger Sierks
Giampiero Naletto
Philippe L. Lamy
Rafael Rodrigo
Detlef Koschny
Bjorn Davidsson
Cesare Barbieri
Maria Antonietta Barucci
Jean-Loup Bertaux
Ivano Bertini
Dennis Bodewits
Pamela Cambianica
Vania Da Deppo
Stefano Debei
Mariolino De Cecco
Jacob Deller
Sabrina Ferrari
Francesca Ferri
Marco Franceschi
Marco Fulle
Pedro Gutiérrez
Carsten Güttler
Wing-H. Ip
Uwe Keller
Luisa Lara
Monica Lazzarin
Jose Lopez Moreno
Francesco Marzari
Cecilia Tubiana


Surely not all of them are liars???

Are you blind, as well as being a liar? Learn to read. I am getting sick of your idiotic trolling. Why don't you sod off? You do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the science, and you are a pathological liar. Go away.

[jonesdave116]

Here we go again for the pathological liar;

Quote:

The variation of friction coefficients measured on 67P is not due to different inclination of the slopes from which material falls since the gravitational slopes of the considered cliffs are all similar (supporting information). We therefore suggest that the range of H/L values of 67P (between 0.50 and 0.97) can be explained by variations in the volatile content within the top few meters of the comet surface.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Surely not all of them are liars???

Clown. Which one do you want me to email, and point to your lies about them? Shall I ask if they think the landslides are of rock? Even when they specifically state that they aren't, in various papers? You want to be shown up, then say the word, liar.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

And here is another one with many of the same authors (including A'Hearn!);

Tensile strength of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko nucleus material from overhangs
Attree, N. et al. (2018)
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/fu...a32155-17.html

Abstract;



Now, what is the tensile strength of rock? Granite, sandstone, basalt...... pick one. I don't care which.

Oh you'd like to explain and OLD paper before the evolution of our undersanding?

Well you thought comets were MOSTLY ICE, so thats how you modeled them but as Marco Fulle, N. Altobelli, Buratti,M. Choukroun,M. Fulchignoni,E. Gr ̈un, M. G. G. T. Taylor and P. Weissman say

Quote:

The classical model of comets as dirty ice balls (Whipple1950)has focused most models of comets on ices.

The more we visit comets,the dustier they appear. With 67P’s dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside.

So get cracking, sport!

This was one of those papers that did indeed model comets, not on the dirtysnowball model but on the non-volatile matrices data presented and we got The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Why bring old papers up all the time when the new one succeeds them?

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Why bring old papers up all the time when the new one succeeds them?

It doesn't you liar. As is pointed out in the paper. Learn to read. And I asked you, you lying coward; do you want me to email them, and ask if they think it is rock? And if they disown their previous papers? Make your mind up, liar. Yes or no? I'll do a deal with you. Whoever is wrong never posts here again. I'm game, what about you? Care to back your lies up? Unlike A'Hearn, these people are very much alive, and capable of defending themselves from crackpots liars like yourself.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Here we go again for the pathological liar;

Quote:

Landslides on 67P reveal a clear rocky-type behaviour for cometary material that, once collapsed, assumes a rock avalanche mobilization associated to relatively high friction coefficients. This behaviour agrees with the refractory to ice ratio estimated from grains ejected from 67P (Fulle et al., 2019).

Yeah, ya numpty it means NO volatile content within the top few meters of the comet surface!

Quote:

Given that the 67P high friction coefficients are comparable, or even exceed, those found on Earth dry landslides (Legros, 2002), this implies
a mechanically rocky-type behaviour for the cometary material.

DRY = NON volatile

Like the rock we found on Tempel 1.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

It doesn't you liar. As is pointed out in the paper. Learn to read. And I asked you, you lying coward; do you want me to email them, and ask if they think it is rock? And if they disown their previous papers? Make your mind up, liar. Yes or no? I'll do a deal with you. Whoever is wrong never posts here again. I'm game, what about you? Care to back your lies up? Unlike A'Hearn, these people are very much alive, and capable of defending themselves from crackpots liars like yourself.

I really wish you would. If you could cc me to the email, be great. cheers!

Sure they be working from home.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Yeah, ya numpty it means NO volatile content within the top few meters of the comet surface!

Idiot. No it does not. As they clearly explain. If you could understand the paper. Which you can't.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Hey knock yourself out!

Sure they be working from home.

So, I want to see you agree, in writing, on here, that when you are shown to be the lying clown that I suggested, that you stop posting on here. Agreed?

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Sure they be working from home.

And I'm sure they check their work emails.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

This analysis suggests that the falling icy material constituting the comet is
characterized by a mechanical behavior that is not comparable to the collapsed ice on other bodies.

You'd have thought that sentence alone would put off even the most pathological of liars. But not Sol, apparently.

[jonesdave116]

And this is what I meant when I said earlier;

Quote:

This thread has run its course. The 'model' that is the main topic of the thread has been well and truly debunked. Its one and only proponent has failed to make a case for it. Furthermore, said proponent lacks the qualifications, education and intellectual capacity to be able to defend it scientifically. He therefore is reduced to lying and trolling. I, for one, see no benefit in keeping this troll fest open.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

So, I want to see you agree, in writing, on here, that when you are shown to be the lying clown that I suggested, that you stop posting on here. Agreed?

Knock yourself out.

Will you put me in your email chain?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

You'd have thought that sentence alone would put off even the most pathological of liars. But not Sol, apparently.

Jebus H Cristos!

Quote:

This work widens the landslides dataset of the Solar System, and in particular on icy bodies, producing a global mapping and a detailed analysis of such surface features on a cometary nucleus.

The 67P landslide analysis reveals a clear rocky-type behavior of cometary material, which is more similar to terrestrial material and totally different from what is observed on other Solar System icy bodies.

These results show that 67P and likely comets in general are characterised by consolidated material, hence rejecting the idea that they are fluffy aggregates.

The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Pathological of liars? Get it together champ.

Slaps head and walks off!

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Oh you'd like to explain and OLD paper before the evolution of our undersanding?

Oh really? And when, in the fantasy universe that you inhabit, did this imaginary 'evolution in understanding' occur? Around the time of the A'Hearn quote that you keep lying about?
Let's see. Now when would that be?

Comets: looking ahead
A'Hearn, M. F. (2017)
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rsta.2016.0261

Hmmm, that was accepted on 6 October, 2016.

Now, what about the paper I linked, on the tensile strength? On which A'Hearn was a co-author?

Tensile strength of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko nucleus material from overhangs
Attree, N. et al. (2018)
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/fu...a32155-17.html

Well, it was published in 2018, as I made clear in the original post. That ought to give one pause for thought. Even when thinking isn't one's strong suit.So, let's have a butcher's - whoops;

Received: 23 October 2017 Accepted: 20 December 2017

So, what about the other paper I linked;

The pristine interior of comet 67P revealed by the combined Aswan outburst and cliff collapse
Pajola, M. et al. (2017)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-017-0092#

Whoops again;

Received 04 October 2016

Accepted 02 March 2017

Published 21 March 2017

So, yet again, it is the work of but a few minutes to show that Sol is talking out of his backside. Again. As usual.

[Sol88]

Now lets take the snippet

Quote:

67P and likely comets in general

Well one of those comets was

Quote:

Though the post-impact spectrum is still being analyzed, it shows that Tempel 1's ejecta contain the following chemicals: smectite clay; iron-containing compounds; carbonates, the minerals in seashells; crystallized silicates, such as the green olivine minerals found on beaches and in the gemstone peridot; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are carbon-containing compounds found in car exhaust and on burnt toast.

So, A'Hearn already had a pretty good idea. Hence is statement "Comets are mostly rocky".

And you bang o about what type of rock... who cares it bloody rocky rock made of rock surrounded by rock in the obvious and ubiquitous layers of ROCK.

What more would you like more, brain cells!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Jebus H Cristos!

The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Pathological of liars? Get it together champ.

Slaps head and walks off!

Fool. You do not think that 'rocky-type' means rock? Surely not even you could be that stupid. Given everything else they wrote in that paper about ICE and VOLATILES? Your religious devotion, and selective reading skills, know no bounds. You were wrong. As is obvious to anybody who can read and comprehend a pretty straightforward paper. Continuing to lie about it is not going to prove anything, other than that you are a pathological liar.