The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Nope, no rock ever seen at a comet.

That is just you following in Thornhill's footsteps, and lying to cover up your total failure.


And the 'water' at asteroids is generally locked up in minerals, and may only be OH. It doesn't sublimate. There are only a handful of Themis 24 type asteroids where actual ice has possibly been detected. And they are classed as main belt comets. Which also put the lie to the idiotic claim that elliptical orbits are required. They are not on them! Of the millions of other asteroids, sod all of them are turning into comets whenever they get warm enough. Including NEOs, and asteroids on cometary orbits. So, your whole woo falls like a pack of cards, due to being scientifically illiterate drivel, dreamed up by clowns who think Earth used to orbit Saturn. I sure as hell wouldn't take people like that seriously. I'd contact the authorities, and see what the chances were of having them committed.

Couple things there champ.

Ummmm...let's see if simple can get it, ay!

Quote:

Such unexpected high values reveal a rocky-type mechanical behavior that is much more akin to Earth dry landslides than to icy satellites’ mass movements.

This behavior indicates that 67P and likely comets in general are characterised by consolidated materials possibly rejecting the idea that they are fluffy aggregates

The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko Holger Sierks, Jean-Baptiste Vincent, Marco Fulle, Maurizio Pajola


So ROCK and ROCKY and CONSOLIDATED are all the same thing sport, this is, as attested by you, not EXPECTED in the dirtysnowball model!

rejecting the idea that they are fluffy aggregates??? the grandpoobah of experiments, the RSI says

Quote:

Abstract
The radio science experiment RSI on board Rosetta determined the mass of the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at the start of the prime mission from August to November 2014 (GM = 666.2 ± 0.2 m3/s2 or 9,982 ± 3·1012 kg ) and shortly before the end of the mission from July to September 2016 (GM = 665.5 ± 0.1 m3/s2 or 9,971.5 ± 1.5·1012 kg).

The mass loss is M = 10.5 ± 3.4·109 kg, about 0.1% of the nucleus mass. Almost 50% of the mass loss occurred during the 32 days before and 62 days after perihelion.

The nucleus mass combined with the new very precise nucleus volume of 18.56±0.02 km3 yield a bulk density of 537.8 ± 0.6 kg/m3.

This low bulk density suggests that the nucleus is highly porous. The porosity is constrained by the observed bulk density, the density of ices, mostly water ice, and the density of compacted nucleus dust material.

Martin Pätzold

So, suggests that the nucleus is highly porous and comets in general are characterised by consolidated materials possibly rejecting the idea that they are fluffy aggregates are not compatible

i.e. You have a conundrum there jd116 mate!

Unfortunatly, this outdated thinking of yours is compounded by this statement of yours whenever they get warm enough.

So Holger Sierks, Jean-Baptiste Vincent, Marco Fulle, Maurizio Pajola have been around for awhile in working on cometary scinece and when they say, "67P landslide reveal a rocky-type mechanical behavior indicating that comets are made by consolidated materials" which reinforces "our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock" topped of by "The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice."

And now with the added bonus of "This behaviour indicates that 67P and likely comets in general are characterised by consolidated materials possibly rejecting the idea that they are fluffy aggregates."


Show me the ROCK, what a goose! Seems jonesy gunna have a little


or mainstream will require some more of their favorite stuff dust!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Nope, no rock ever seen at a comet. That is just you following in Thornhill's footsteps, and lying to cover up your total failure.

Quote:

All these results make 67P a very peculiar object, mainly composed by ices and refractory materials, but characterised by rocky-type properties rather than icy-type characteristics.

The rocky-type behavior we highlight with this work does not mean that the material constituting comet 67P is dense as rock, as the mean bulk density of 537.8 kg/m3 points out (Preusker et al., 2017).

Nevertheless, we observed that 67P material is highly fractured, as well as it did not largely compress, as in the case of rolling boulders (Vincent et al., 2019). On Earth, such properties generally belong to material that cannot be considered fluffy.

Despite that, we still do not have a definitive, undisputable proof regarding 67P composition and for this reason we have to rely for our statement on 67P’s H/L values. Indeed, such values are in some cases more similar to Earth dry volcanic landslides, i.e. strengthening the idea that cometary material under 67P low gravity behaves like terrestrial rock

So after all these mission and all this data mainstream are still stuck on wether comets are mostly ICE or MOSTLY ROCK (Asteroids/Meteorites).

which OBVIOUSLY contain MORE WATER than comets!!!

pooer jonesy seems to struggle on what the EXPERTS are saying, even if he does not believe the ELECTRIC COMET'S assertion that comets are indeed rocky objects!

Be they, left overs from the formation of the solar system, blasted of planets in impacts or removed via the forces involved in PLASMA discharge.

but they are ROCKS!

[Sol88]

Comets are ROCKY objects, helljulia!

20th July 2009, 09:07 AM

So 10 years for the mainstream to catch up! 10yrs of abuse from the mob here... oh well, that's science!

Now, imagine if they entertained the idea that comets are ELECTRICAL phenomena!

Imagine the progress then!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So after all these mission and all this data mainstream are still stuck on wether comets are mostly ICE or MOSTLY ROCK (Asteroids/Meteorites).

which OBVIOUSLY contain MORE WATER than comets!!!

pooer jonesy seems to struggle on what the EXPERTS are saying, even if he does not believe the ELECTRIC COMET'S assertion that comets are indeed rocky objects!

Be they, left overs from the formation of the solar system, blasted of planets in impacts or removed via the forces involved in PLASMA discharge.

but they are ROCKS!

How many times do I need to tell you? No rock has ever been detected at a comet. You are a liar. Show me the detection. Instrument, strength, thermal inertia, type of rock. Get on with it.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Comets are ROCKY objects, helljulia!

20th July 2009, 09:07 AM

So 10 years for the mainstream to catch up! 10yrs of abuse from the mob here... oh well, that's science!

Now, imagine if they entertained the idea that comets are ELECTRICAL phenomena!

Imagine the progress then!

Why would they entertain such idiocy? We know they aren't rock, and we know there is no electrical woo. Fail. Show me the detections. You can't. So you just keep on lying. It is all you have left. It is all you ever had, given that your woo is scientifically impossible.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Why would they entertain such idiocy? We know they aren't rock, and we know there is no electrical woo. Fail. Show me the detections. You can't. So you just keep on lying. It is all you have left. It is all you ever had, given that your woo is scientifically impossible.

I'll just give you the condensed version by the experts, " Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces." these experts include Alice Lucchetti1, Luca Penasa2, Maurizio Pajola1, Matteo Massironi3,1,2, Maria Teresa Brunetti4, Gabriele Cremonese1, Nilda Oklay5, Jean-Baptiste Vincent5, Stefano Mottola5, Sonia Fornasier6, Holger Sierks7, Giampiero Naletto8,9,2, Philippe L. Lamy10, Rafael Rodrigo11,12, Detlef Koschny13, Bjorn Davidsson14, Cesare Barbieri15, Maria Antonietta Barucci6, Jean-Loup Bertaux16 , Ivano Bertini15, Dennis Bodewits17, Pamela Cambianica2, Vania Da Deppo9 , Stefano Debei18, Mariolino De Cecco19, Jacob Deller7, Sabrina Ferrari2, Francesca Ferri2, Marco Franceschi3, Marco Fulle17, Pedro Gutiérrez21, Carsten Güttler7 , Wing-H. Ip22,23, Uwe Keller24,5, Luisa Lara21, Monica Lazzarin15, Jose Lopez Moreno21, Francesco Marzari8, Cecilia Tubiana7 for starters and NOT including you, tusenfem and reality check but anyhoo, from one of the latest papers and the evolving understanding of cometary nuclei.

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

Quote:

5. Conclusion

The detailed characterisation and analysis of landslides on 67P widens the dataset of the Solar System landslides considering meter-scale case studies that were not analysed before on other planetary bodies.

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).

In addition, the considerable variability of H/L values among the different landslides suggests that different volatile contents of the detached mass play a fundamental role on the gravitational process and final runout, hence being a general indicator for the subsurface cometary heterogeneities

The last statement In addition, the considerable variability of H/L values among the different landslides suggests that different volatile contents of the detached mass play a fundamental role on the gravitational process and final runout, hence being a general indicator for the subsurface cometary heterogeneities is interesting when the assertion that comets are consolidated rocky bodies.

If we cast our minds back to the RSI experiment, we KNOW them to be HIGHLY POROUS DUSTY bodies with little to no ice (volatiles), "The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice."

Right, so your model has not looked for rock because comets are icy bodies not rock/asteroidal/Meteoric materiel.

but thru clever maths

Quote:

The height to runout length (H/L) of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko landslides ranges between 0.50 and 0.97

...ah maths

Which has more water, jonesdave116, rock/asteroidal/Meteoric materiel or comets?

[Sol88]

So to recap, again, you have a rocky-type mechanical behavior indicating that comets are made by consolidated materials on highly porous very dusty body with very little ice? This is the icydirtball you speak of?

You'll also need to invoke novel therm-physical models to save the failed Dirtysnowball (Sublimation) therm-physical model.

Invoke and novel are not the best scientific terms but are used at times by storytellers and believers.

Oh, and outgassing become untenable as we move toward mostly rock, otherwise jonedave116's naive assertion based on an incorrect model (sublimation), "whenever they get warm enough." would be the same for asteroids (rocks).

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Which has more water, jonesdave116, rock/asteroidal/Meteoric materiel or comets?

Who cares? According to your woo comets shouldn't have any water. Which is another big fat fail. And are you talking about JFCs or long period comets? Hale-Bopp ~ 250 000 l/s. I'd say comets. Not that it's relevant to your failed woo.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

I'll just give you the condensed version by the experts

Nope, quit with the lying. I asked a specific question; where is the detection of rock? Show me the paper. Which instrument? What type of rock? What is its strength? What is its thermal inertia? What is the density? You can't answer, because no rock has ever been detected at a comet. So, that would be yet another fail.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

characterised by consolidated surfaces

My kitchen top is a consolidated surface. It's wood.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Nope, quit with the lying. I asked a specific question; where is the detection of rock? Show me the paper. Which instrument? What type of rock? What is its strength? What is its thermal inertia? What is the density? You can't answer, because no rock has ever been detected at a comet. So, that would be yet another fail.

You forgot friction coefficients, dude!

Anyhoo, What type of rock, I hear you ask?

diamicton

Quote:

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.

would be a start.

not just on 67P but jonesdave116's beloved Tempel 1.

Key Discoveries https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/deep-impact/

Quote:

September 2005: Astronomers, using data from NASA's Sptizer Space Telescope and Deep Impact, come up with a list of compounds thought to be the recipe for planets, comets and other bodies in the solar system.

Included are silicates, or sand, clay, carbonates, iron-bearing compounds and even aromatic hydrocarbons

So consolidated silicates, or sand, clay, carbonates are indeed water bearing minerals and could be called rock, as in like sandstones, siltstones, gneisses, and limestones.

So that'd be another good start!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So to recap, again, you have a rocky-type mechanical behavior indicating that comets are made by consolidated materials on highly porous very dusty body with very little ice? This is the icydirtball you speak of?

You'll also need to invoke novel therm-physical models to save the failed Dirtysnowball (Sublimation) therm-physical model.

Invoke and novel are not the best scientific terms but are used at times by storytellers and believers.

Oh, and outgassing become untenable as we move toward mostly rock, otherwise jonedave116's naive assertion based on an incorrect model (sublimation), "whenever they get warm enough." would be the same for asteroids (rocks).

Is just more lies based on ignorance. Sublimation has never failed as a model. And the only thing that has changed since Whipple's day is the dust: ice ratio. Understand? Zilch.The whole model was, and still is, based on sublimation of volatiles. Given that we see those volatiles, then the model works. And it is not my assertion, you lying clown. It is what is believed by the scientists who study comets. You are not a scientist, and you understand **** all about the science of comets. You are a wooist, who believes in all sorts of scientifically impossible crap. So, I would suggest getting yourself an education before you start trying to teach me anything about any area of science. Because you haven't got a clue. Which is proven by the fact that you were conned into believing this fairy tale.
Get back to us when you have a detection of rock, and detection of your idiotic electric discharges. And actual mechanisms. And science. Otherwise, your woo is shown to fail, and there is nothing else to discuss. Go lie somewhere else.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

You forgot friction coefficients, dude!

I forgot nothing. Show me the detection of rock, and quit lying. Just for once.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

I forgot nothing. Show me the detection of rock, and quit lying. Just for once.

Why don't you email NASA's The Jet Propulsion Laboratory if you so hung up on no rock detected.

A said here.

but again and these were KEY discoveries

Quote:

September 2005: Astronomers, using data from NASA's Sptizer Space Telescope and Deep Impact, come up with a list of compounds thought to be the recipe for planets, comets and other bodies in the solar system. Included are silicates, or sand, clay, carbonates, iron-bearing compounds and even aromatic hydrocarbons

So now your so bloody clever that even NASA is wrong!


Comets are ROCKS, champ!


Your argument (only argument) that I'm a liar makes you such the

[jonesdave116]

Let me just remind the wooists of the outstanding problems with their woo, which is the subject of this thread;

Your woo is scientifically impossible. It relies on a radial electric field from the Sun. Such a thing has not been measured, and any idiot knows that an electric field will accelerate electrons and ions in opposite directions. So, it fails at the first hurdle.

We also knew, over 30 years ago, that the claimed method of making OH cannot happen. And is not happening.

We also knew that it is water, not OH.

We also knew that no electric woo is happening.

We have always know that the density od comets rules out rock. And no rock has ever been detected.

We also knew that interplanetary lightning bolts do not exist, and therefore cannot blast pieces of planets into space.

So, that is where the woo stands. Completely and utterly falsified. Not that it needed to be. A decent high school education, focussing on sciences, would tell anybody that it was never possible in the first place. It takes a special kind of stupid to believe such nonsense. The kind of stupid one regularly finds amongst the Velikovskian wooists of EU.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

You know the ELECTRIC COMET.

Just because there are electric fields in the plasma does not mean that the outlandish claims of the electric comet idea work.
One (i.e. EC proponents) might want to show that this wonderful new physics and chemistry actually works to explain the observations with actual quantitative estimates based on the EC physics.
"Unfortunately", we only get handwaving.
One (a sensible person) would think that if the EC proponents are so convinced that their ideas are correct, they would grab every possibility, dig into the PDS and PSA data bases, to show mainstream their superiority.
What we get here, in the electric comet thread is a useless discussion whether a comet is made of rock.

sad

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Why don't you email NASA's The Jet Propulsion Laboratory if you so hung up on no rock detected.

A said here.

but again and these were KEY discoveries



So now your so bloody clever that even NASA is wrong!


Comets are ROCKS, champ!


Your argument (only argument) that I'm a liar makes you such the

Fool. That is dust. Show me the rock. Which instrument detected it? What is the strength? What is the thermal inertia? electric permittivity? Density? What type of rock is it? Get on with it, and quit with the lying and ignorance.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

blurb

Got to love how Sol88's hero Marco Fulle now suddenly is the villain.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Is just more lies based on ignorance. Sublimation has never failed as a model. And the only thing that has changed since Whipple's day is the dust: ice ratio. Understand? Zilch.The whole model was, and still is, based on sublimation of volatiles. .

Deserves the big dog here!!!

Quote:

the high dust-to-water mass ratio, which implies that much of the nucleus mass is in the form of minerals partly coming from the inner proto-solar nebula, thus making 67P very porous and less hydrated than primitive CI chondrites.

Marco Fulle

If you have a beef and you love to email fulle@oats.inaf.it and inform him that comets have MORE water than primitive CI chondrites.

Hes got it arsce about face!


according to YOU!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Got to love how Sol88's hero Marco Fulle now suddenly is the villain.

No lie, fair dinkum quoted straight from the paper, this is what Marco Fulle said

Quote:

thus making 67P very porous and less hydrated than primitive
CI chondrites.

He also had a hand in "Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces."

So not so porous?

Luckily Marco Fulle was not the real villain but Martin Pätzoldm, bloody upstart suggesting "The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice."

So, yeah, ummmmm...

Highly porous consolidated dust!

tusenfem, gigs up!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Deserves the big dog here!!!

Marco Fulle

If you have a beef and you love to email fulle@oats.inaf.it and inform him that comets have MORE water than primitive CI chondrites.

Hes got it arsce about face!


according to YOU!

WTF are you talking about? You never stop lying, do you (rhetorical)? Show me one scientist that thinks the coma of a comet is not due to sublimation. You can't. Show me any scientist who doesn't think that that sublimation is of ices. You can't.
You need to deal with the complete failure of your idiotic woo, before you even attempt to use your non-existent knowledge of science to address real comets. I do not see that happening. I conclude, therefore, that you have given up on said impossible woo, and we can therefore close the thread. Yes?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

No lie, fair dinkum quoted straight from the paper, this is what Marco Fulle said



He also had a hand in "Our findings reject the idea that comets are fluffy aggregates, instead, they are characterised by consolidated surfaces."

So not so porous?

Luckily Marco Fulle was not the real villain but Martin Pätzoldm, bloody upstart suggesting "The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice."

So, yeah, ummmmm...

Highly porous consolidated dust!

tusenfem, gigs up!

You really are too stupid for words. Deal with your failed woo, or go away.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

WTF are you talking about? You never stop lying, do you (rhetorical)?

sniped

You need to deal with the complete failure of your idiotic woo, before you even attempt to use your non-existent knowledge of science to address real comets. I do not see that happening. I conclude, therefore, that you have given up on said impossible woo, and we can therefore close the thread. Yes?

Thus making 67P very porous and less hydrated than primitive CI chondrites. Hows the dust to ice ratio here?

Need a tissue or something?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

You really are too stupid for words. Deal with your failed woo, or go away.

Which has more water, jonesy asteroids/meteorites or comets?

you never did answer, funnily enough.


Why not?


thus making 67P very porous and less hydrated than primitive CI chondrites.

Shhhh, don't tell jonesdave116.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Thus making 67P very porous and less hydrated than primitive CI chondrites. Hows the dust to ice ratio here?

Need a tissue or something?

And what has this got to do with your failed woo? Nothing. So deal with your failed woo. Which is the subject of this thread. You do not have enough understanding of science to have a discussion about that. So stick to the woo. Where is it? You know, the rock? The discharges? The impossible radial field? Get on with it.

[Sol88]

'nuff fun for today. Enjoy your lock down.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

And what has this got to do with your failed woo? Nothing. So deal with your failed woo. Which is the subject of this thread. You do not have enough understanding of science to have a discussion about that. So stick to the woo. Where is it? You know, the rock? The discharges? The impossible radial field? Get on with it.

Which has more water, jonesy asteroids/meteorites or comets?

Reminds me of the CHARGE SEPARATION style of argument we had awhile back.

Same tactic there too, ay?

So we have ROCK, CHARGE SEPARATION.

The ELECTRIC COMET.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Which has more water, jonesy asteroids/meteorites or comets?

Reminds me of the CHARGE SEPARATION style of argument we had awhile back.

Same tactic there too, ay?

So we have ROCK, CHARGE SEPARATION.

The ELECTRIC COMET.

No, you clown, you do not have rock. Where is it? I keep asking, you keep lying. Link me to the paper that detected rock. How difficult can it be? Get on with it you liar.

[jonesdave116]

I think some highly relevant words of wisdom from Tim Thompson are called for here;

Quote:

There is no honesty in the electric cosmos, it is dominated by preconception. You can see this clearly in the way they practice "science by exegesis", using literary techniques, and criticizing phrases & passages. But when they try to follow the form of "science", suggesting "scientific" explanations, like the simple circuit model for a solar flare, they can't even make their own model physically consistent with their own explanation!; When do you finally decide that enough is enough? How many gross, simple factual errors do you think are OK, before you are willing to call something "stupid"? I actually have a pretty decent level of tolerance for error based on ignorance, but errors based on a fundamental dishonesty are intolerable when peddled as "science". At its core, the electric cosmos is based on dishonesty, not science, and you cannot ever tolerate that.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...Model&p=477320

[jonesdave116]

Now, I wouldn't claim for one second to be able to compete with Tim Thompson in terms of scientific knowledge or erudition. However, I can summarise pretty well. And what he wrote above can be summarised into one brief sentence;

"The EU wooists are stupid, and they are liars."

Saves on pixels.

[Sol88]

Sorry, was there an answer in all that?

Which has more water, jonesy asteroids/meteorites or comets?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

No, you clown, you do not have rock. Where is it? I keep asking, you keep lying. Link me to the paper that detected rock. How difficult can it be? Get on with it you liar.

Talking of clowns, have not heard from Tim for some time now. Perhaps he'd like to revisit his past assumptions.

Like the assumption comets are mostly ice. that would be a good start.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Sorry, was there an answer in all that?

Which has more water, jonesy asteroids/meteorites or comets?

I answered it. Learn to read. And it has nothing to do with your failed woo. No rock, no electric woo. Complete failure, as known 20 years before it was invented.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Talking of clowns, have not heard from Tim for some time now. Perhaps he'd like to revisit his past assumptions.

Like the assumption comets are mostly ice. that would be a good start.

The qualified scientist made no assumptions. Unlike you. Who keeps lying about things purely because you have some sort of religious need for them to be there. Even though they are shown not to be.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

I answered it. Learn to read. And it has nothing to do with your failed woo. No rock, no electric woo. Complete failure, as known 20 years before it was invented.

So, yes?

Asteroids have more water than comets.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

The qualified scientist made no assumptions. Unlike you. Who keeps lying about things purely because you have some sort of religious need for them to be there. Even though they are shown not to be.

like ROCK you mean?

[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 13 Mar 2020).

This post: Insane delusions about a paper and that his demented dogma can explain the organics found at comets which mainstream science can. It is textbook chemistry - C + O + H + sunlight = organics.
Next post: A demoted delusion that his insane dogma has ay mechanisms at all!
Next post: An insane lie in reply to An insane "comets have LESS water then asteroids" lie.. The post was that Sol88 as usual wrote yet another demented lie about science and English. It as a primitive CI chondrite asteroids that have more hydration (water bound in minerals) ) than comets (free water in ices).
Doubly insane because decades of lying rants will continue.
Next post: Madness of making himself into a liar - rants yet again about the mainstream science that comets have less hydration than primitive CI chondrites.
Next post: Persists in his insanity of citing mainstream ices and dust comet science. His utter insanity that any mention of the word "electric" is his demented dogma.
Next post: Usual insane lies about posts and posters.
jonesdave116 's post is that Sol88's demented dogma has no water or ices. But Sol88 is showing his insanity with deluded rants about the mainstream expectation that comets will have less water ices than the water bound into minerals in some asteroids !
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's demented dogma, etc.
Insane lie that any paper by ant astronomer including Michael Francis A'Hearn states that comet composition matches carbonaceous chondrites. Comets are at least 17% ices (67P), may be as much as 50% ices (Tempel 1) and the average may be over 50% - we need more data.
Next post: More insane ranting about that science makes assumptions.
More insane lies about science. The dirty snowball model is still the dirty snowball model ! When 1 comet was physically measured to possibly have more dust and ices, that comet was described as an icy dirty ball. In the future, we may find that an average comet has more dust then ices and the name of the dirty snowball model may change.
Sol88 will be still utterly insane regardless of the model name because he is demented enough to believe in obviously insane cult dogma about comets and the Sun
Next post: More insane ranting and lying about hydration of comets and asteroids\ being as expect in mainstream science.
Next post: Usual insane lies about science, posts and posters.
jonesdave116 wrote Nope, no rock ever seen at a comet ... And the 'water' at asteroids is generally locked up in minerals, and may only be OH. Those are physical facts. None of the actual and even terrestrial rock demanded by Sol88's demented dogma has been detected at comets. No ices have been detected at asteroids but exposure of pockets of ice is a possible mechanism for outbursts from active asteroids.
Sol88 as he bee doing for years goes utterly insane about the words "rock", "rocky", "consolidated material", etc. in mainstream ices and dust comet papers.
Next post: Usual insane lies about science.
The difference between comets and asteroid is obvious to anyone with a brain and eyes, neither of which Sol88 has !
A comet is a low density (averages to ~06 g/cc) body in a elongated orbit originating from the outer Solar System that has a persistent coma, an ion (gas) tail and a dust tail when it approaches the Sun. An asteroid is a high density (averages to ~3.0 g/cc) pile of rubble often in a fairly circular orbit (main belt) that never has a persistent coma, an ion (gas) tail and a dust tail.
Next post: Usual insane lies about even his own posts .
That 2009 post is a insane rant about the measured density of Asteroid 22 Kalliope. Sol88 shows he has been insane about science for decades (at least 2009) . Gravity is a well understood force as over 300 years of data matching the theory shows. Gravity is the strongest force in the universe between neutral bodies.
Insane rant about the explained in 2012 Pioneer anomaly
Sol88 demonstrates that he has been insane since 2009 with "What did deep impact tell us again!!!". He is too stupid to look up papers about Deep Impact that were published since 2005 or even Wikipedia! Deep Impact showed us that Comet Tempel 1 was made of up to 50% water ice and dust. Deep Impact made a crater that was 14 times bigger than a similar impact in rock.
Deep Impact shows us in 2005 just how insane Sol88 is with his demented comet dogma !
Next post: Usual insane lying rant about science.
His decides old insanity about the words "rock" ,"consolidated", etc. in paoers.
The rocky-like behavior of cometary landslides on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is an mainstream ices and dust comet paper. What the authors are saying is that ices and dust comets do not have "fluffy aggregates" on their surface. They have surfaces that are ice and dust bound together in a consolidated surface.
Next post: Usual insane lying rant about science.
Next post: Usual insane lying rant about science, posts and posters.
jonesdave116 wrote Nope, quit with the lying. I asked a specific question; where is the detection of rock? Show me the paper. Which instrument? What type of rock? What is its strength? What is its thermal inertia? What is the density? The important bit is highlighted .
Sol88 goes on an insane lying rant about "What type of rock?".
Sol88 shows how insane he is with a quote from the landslides on ices and dust comets paper that compares (the word before his highlight ) the "mean landslide apparent friction angle" to "sandstones, siltstones, gneisses and slates (from 27 to 34°), or basalts, granites and, limestones (from 34° to 40°)".
Sol88 shows how insane he is by citing Deep Impact which demonstrated that Sol88 has been insane since at least 2009! See above.
Deep Impact

Quote:

Tempel 1 has a very fluffy structure made up of a fine dust that is weaker than a bank of powder snow, but that's held together by gravity...

Sol88 is so insane that he thinks "silicates, or sand, clay, carbonates, iron-bearing compounds and even aromatic hydrocarbons" only appear on rocky planets such as the Earth as demanded by his demented dogma ! Slicates, or sand, clay, carbonates, iron-bearing compounds were the common building blocks of planets and comets.
Next post: Usual insane lying rant about science (his hydration insanity).
Next post: Usual insane lying rant about science (his hydration insanity).
Next post: Usual insane lying rant about science (his hydration insanity).
Next post: Usual insane lying rant about science, posts and posters (his hydration insanity).
onesdave116 did not reply to a year another demented, irrelevant question. Sol88 is too insane to understand any answer or even the mainstream ices and dust comets paper he cites.
An insane "comets have LESS water then asteroids" lie.. This is the mainstream prediction that there is more water bound minerals in some asteroids that water ices on some comets (just Comet 67P).
Next post: Usual insane lying rant about science, posts and posters (his hydration insanity).
Next post: Usual insane lying rant about science, posts and posters (his hydration insanity).
Next post: Usual insane insults of posters.
Tim Thompson retired from posting here years ago. The science Tim Thompson posted still shows how insane Sol88 is.
Next post: Usual insane lying rant about science, posts and posters
His hydration insanity persisting with his pitiful and stupid "Asteroids have more water than comets" lie. As the paper states in clear English and he has quoted: It is 1 comet (67P) that has less water in ices than a class of asteroids has bound in minerals.
Next post: Usual insane lying rant about science, posts and posters
jonesdave116 wrote The qualified scientist made no assumptions. Unlike you. Who keeps lying about things purely because you have some sort of religious need for them to be there. Even though they are shown not to be.
Sol88 replies with his decades old insanity that astronomers using the word "rock" are as insane as him and mean actual rock as on Earth. They mean the measured ices and dust on comets need a word for ices and dust consolidated by gravity and they use the geological term "rock" because they know the evidence that comets are not actual rock.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So, yes?

Asteroids have more water than comets.

What a dumb question. Define the parameters. Which comets and which asteroids? Any asteroids out there outgassing 250 000 l/s, like Hale-Bopp? I think you would have to look at Ceres or Vesta to get that amount of water. And they are considerably larger than H-B. JFCs? Which ones? Ones that have been passing back and forth within a few AU of the Sun for a number of orbits? Or ones that are fresh to the inner system due to orbital perturbations?
And, as I've said, all this is irrelevant to your failed woo. We are still awaiting the papers that confirm the detection of granite, or electric discharge machining (lol). Not going to happen. So, your woo is dead. As is this thread.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

like ROCK you mean?

Yes, rock that doesn't exist, that you keep lying about, due to your religious need for it to be there. It ain't. Comets are a rock-free zone.

[jonesdave116]

More from Tim Thompson. Any highlighting is mine.

Quote:

My central theme is that the EU fails the test of predictions on many levels. The spots on the comets are details that are not important; as predictions, they are quite useless (especially when they are predicted only after they are seen). What is important is fundamentals. Physics is not a random collection of guesses, but a vast cohesive collection of inter-dependent theories. At the core are the well established disciplines, like classical mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetism & so on. Then on the frontier there are the more speculative areas; cosmology, string theory & the like. My primary concern is to always look for the fundamentals, the things that are more important, more meaningful than anything else. That's where hypotheses live & die, and that's where I apply my own doctrine of the intolerable conflict.

It is the intolerable conflict between observation & theory (or hypothesis) which invariably leads to discovery or failure. Neutrinos were discovered because of the intolerable conflict between the fundamental principle of conservation of energy on the one hand, and observations that appeared to violate that fundamental principle on the other. The successful solution was to assume that the fundamental principle was inviolate, and to look for the missing energy. Likewise, the discovery of neutrino oscillations came out of the appearance of an intolerable conflict between astrophysical models of a star, and the measured neutrino fluxes, both of which could not be simultaneously true. Eventually, observation bolstered the astrophysical models, and pointed towards the neutrinos as the source of the problem. As a result of resolving this conflict, we made major new discoveries about the physics of neutrinos.

So, to me, the spots on the comets, in the EU vs physics debate, are meaningless distractions that are not worth the effort. They have nothing to do with fundamentals, and are in no way involved in intolerable conflict. But other parts of the EU hypothesis are, and those are what I want to talk about. So, I try to force the issue that way in order to understand what the putatuve solution to the intolerable conflicts are. After all, if the EU hypothesis fails the test of fundamentals, then the relation between it and the spots is moot.

So, there is a fundamental & intolerable conflict between the claim that the sun has a strong electric field, and the observation that the sun has a charge neutral solar wind. Either there is a huge misunderstanding in physics, as to how electric fields affect charged particles, or the hypothesis of a solar electric field is wrong. Both can't be simultaneously true, no matter how you slice it.

But how wrong can electromagnetism be? how far off can physics be, in its treatment of the relation between electric fields & charged particles? Not far, I think because this relationship has long since found its way into precise engineering applications that are very sensitive to such a large error. The reams of spacecraft data, and our knowledge of physics & engineering simply don't make enough room for the hypothesis of a solar electric field, such as required by the EU comet model, to survive. So I take the position that there is no such electric field. Discussing its affect on comets therefore seems a great waste of time. I don't see how anyone can ignore all that physics.

According to the EU hypothesis, the comet charges up where there's no charge, and then discharges where there is lots of charge. Not only is such a thing in intolerable conflict with physics, it's in intolerable conflict with plain old common sense.

The list goes on, but you get the point. If I seem to be all worked up, it's because I have been in the middle of this EU business for at least 10 years. I don't like the people who put up the webpages (I mean I really don't like them),. and they don't like me either. But we scream at each other a lot less nowadays, primarily because they have learned to ignore me slightly more effectively than I have learned to ignore them.

In any case, my own opinion of the EU business is obvious; I don't think it rises to the intellectual level required to qualify for the lofty status of "bunk". But I'll leave that at that.

Now, about those comets. There is indeed a lot that is not known about comets, especially how the jets get going. There are two real hypohteses in the works. The old standard has the jets outgassing from the dirty snowball kind of comet. But it has been known for a long time that the dirty snowball model, which comes down from the 50's, has a lot of problems. In 1985 the Giotto spacecraft snapped the first close up pictures of a comet nucleus, and revealed a darker surface than anyone expected. So maybe the comets have a harder surface, and the jets are actually more like geyers, breaking through the hard surface from pressurized volumes underneath (the "new" hypothesis). I suspect the real answer will lie in the discovery that there is more than one kind of comet, with more than one kind of jet. In any case, the Rosetta mission is on the way, and will be the first comet lander mission (we hope). But landing on a comet is a real trick, if you can do it.

http://www.forum.cosmoquest.org/show...658#post501658 (2004)