The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[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.
Most of the recent insanity from Sol88

This post: Insults of posters and insanity about mainstream ice and dust cometary science.
Next post: Insanity of citing mainstream ice and dust comet papers and lying about them.
Next post: Demented question about his insanity of citing mainstream ice and dust comet papers.
Next post: Usual lies about posts and posters.
We have been saying for years that "dirty snowball" is the original name and still is the name for the mainstream ice and dust comet model. It is based on the 1950's concept that the early Solar System formed bodies (not comets yet!) with more ice than dust. Thus when those bodes were perturbed to become comets, comets would have more ices then dust.
Persistent insane lie of "little to no ice" in mainstream astronomy. Astronomers have measured that that comets are at least 17% ices (67%) and up to 50% (Tempel 1). Any "little ice" statements are a comparison to the > 50% expectation of decades ago.
Next post: Usual demented question to derail from his An insane insult of tusenfem as an "an indoctrinated expert" when he is an educated expert.
If he apologizes to tusenfem for the insult, maybe tusenfem will answer the question.
For others:
I do not know the actual answer. I suspect that the paper is talking about a local ambipolar electric field aligned to a local magnetic field. Perhaps on scales of the Debye length (a few metres). Both will be turbulent. The ambipolar electric field will be changing with the physical? turbulent mixing of the solar wind and coma. The magnetic field will be changing with the turbulent mixing of the solar wind and coma ions and electrons.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

No it isn't, thicko. The dirty snowball was a term invented by the press, when it was supposed that ice made up the majority of a comet. The ratio of ice to dust is irrelevant to sublimation. If there is ice, and it is near the surface, and it gets warm enough, it will sublime. That is a physical fact. And that is what is observed.

Seems not if you are now going to model them as

Quote:

modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside.

How far under the surface is this "ice" and how is it entrained into the meteoric matrix?

You don't know and are quite willing to invent "new math" to "prove" it's there!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Seems not if you are now going to model them as

How far under the surface is this "ice" and how is it entrained into the meteoric matrix?

You don't know and are quite willing to invent "new math" to "prove" it's there!

I don't need maths. I need to look at the impact at Tempel 1. I need to look at the CO₂ jets entraining it at Hartley 2. I need to look at it around Hale-Bopp and Holmes and Catalina, et al. I need to look at the landslides on 67P. I need to look at the spectrophotometry at 67P. Et boring cetera. Observation is all I need.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

A rant about ices in comets making himself into an pathological liar.

jonesdave116 wrote No it isn't, thicko.... If there is ice, and it is near the surface, and it gets warm enough, it will sublime. That is a physical fact. And that is what is observed.
An insane lie of "ice" in quotes when he acknowledges that comets have ices by insisting that his demented dogma produces ices and citing paper with ice, e.g. that 67P has at least 17% ice. That is a pathological lie since he just cannot stop lying.

Then:
His insanity that ices (even when mixed with dust) will not sublimate when heated by the Sun.
His insanity of ignorance of basic physics. That dust will enhance the ice sublimation because it is darker, will heat up faster and transfer that heat to the ice.
His pathological lie of "You don't know" when we have detected ice on the surface of comets and under the surface of comets (Deep Impact, Rosetta).
His pathological lie of "quite willing to invent "new math" to "prove" it's there" when it is physical evidence that shows that comet have ice.

[jonesdave116]

....and, apart from anything else, we see the sublimation products of the ices. There is nowhere else they can come from. Sorry to bring logic into it.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

I don't need maths. I need to look at the impact at Tempel 1. I need to look at the CO₂ jets entraining it at Hartley 2. I need to look at it around Hale-Bopp and Holmes and Catalina, et al. I need to look at the landslides on 67P. I need to look at the spectrophotometry at 67P. Et boring cetera. Observation is all I need.

I don't need maths? Funny, me too!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

....and, apart from anything else, we see the sublimation products of the ices. There is nowhere else they can come from. Sorry to bring logic into it.

Of course, the dirtysnowball!


Actualy, hes a good question for you, how are you going to model the dominant non-volatile component?

never been done before because we ALL know comets are mostly ICE!

Except, one little spanner in the dirtysnowball that you are more than happy to ignore again and again.

The Refractory-to-Ice Mass Ratio in Comets!

Quote:

Therefore, comets and KBOs may have less water than CI-chondrites.

[Sol88]

Oi, jonesy which has more water, comets or meteorites?

[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.
Most of the recent insanity from Sol88

This post: Usual lies about posts and posters.
jonesdave116 wrote that he does not need math to show that there are sublimating ices on comets because there is physical evidence of sublimating ices on comets, e.g. the million of tones of ice ejected by Deep Impact on Tempel 1 !
As Sol88 wrote, Sol88 does not need math (or science or physical evidence!). This is because he is insanely deluded about science, comets, etc. as the 11 years of ranting in this thread shows, and has an deranged trust in a demented cult and its religious dogma.

ETA
Next post: Repeat of A rant about ice in comets making himself into an pathological liar
Next post: Persists in his insanity about a mainstream ice and dust The Refractory-to-Ice Mass Ratio in Comets paper.
Next post: Persists in his insanity about a mainstream ice and dust The Refractory-to-Ice Mass Ratio in Comets paper.
His insanity starts with citing an irrelevant, mainstream ice and dust comet paper. He is even more insane because we expect comets to have less water than CI-chondrites by common sense: formed in same environment + comets lose water lose by ices sublimating + CI-chondrites have the water basically locked in minerals! He is even more insane because he obsessing with a probable confirmed prediction of mainstream astronomy. He is even more insane because he cannot understand the English word "may" or the word "and" or the phrase "as predicted" ! He is even more insane because he quote mines the abstract:

Quote:

We review the complex relationship between the dust-to-gas mass ratio usually estimated in the material lost by comets, and the refractory-to-ice mass ratio inside the nucleus, which constrains the origin of comets. Such a relationship is dominated by the mass transfer from the perihelion erosion to fallout over most of the nucleus surface. This makes the refractory-to-ice mass ratio inside the nucleus up to 10 times larger than the dust-to-gas mass ratio in the lost material, because the lost material is missing most of the refractories which were inside the pristine nucleus before the erosion. We review the refractory-to-ice mass ratios available for the comet nuclei visited by space missions, and for the Kuiper Belt Objects with well-defined bulk density, finding the 1-σ lower limit of 3. Therefore, comets and KBOs may have less water than CI-chondrites, as predicted by models of comet formation by the gravitational collapse of cm-sized pebbles driven by streaming instabilities in the protoplanetary disc.

Their review gives the refractory-to-ice mass ratios average over comets and KBO as 3. That suggests ("may") that comets and KBOs have less water than CI-chondrites. That is as predicted by the mainstream models of comet formation.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

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.
Most of the recent insanity from Sol88

This post: Usual lies about posts and posters.
jonesdave116 wrote that he does not need math to show that there are sublimating ices on comets because there is physical evidence of sublimating ices on comets, e.g. the million of tones of ice ejected by Deep Impact on Tempel 1 !
As Sol88 wrote, Sol88 does not need math (or science or physical evidence!). This is because he is insanely deluded about science, comets, etc. as the 11 years of ranting in this thread shows, and has an deranged trust in a demented cult and its religious dogma.
This post: Repeat of A rant about ice in comets making himself into an pathological liar
This post: Persists in his insanity about a mainstream ice and dust The Refractory-to-Ice Mass Ratio in Comets paper.

This post: Persists in his insanity about a mainstream ice and dust The Refractory-to-Ice Mass Ratio in Comets paper. did they find that comets and KBOs may have less water than CI-chondrites?

[Sol88]

Quote:

Their review gives the refractory-to-ice mass ratios average over comets and KBO as 3. That suggests ("may") that comets and KBOs have less water than CI-chondrites. That is as predicted by the mainstream models of comet formation.

Classic RC!

[Reality Check]

More on Persists in his insanity about a mainstream ice and dust The Refractory-to-Ice Mass Ratio in Comets paper - part 2.
We already have his insanity of

• Citing an irrelevant, mainstream ice and dust comet paper in a thread about his demented dogma.
• Expecting comets to have the same or more water than CI-chondrites when they visit the Sun and lose water by sublimation and CI-chondrites have water basically locked in minerals.
• Obsessing with a probable confirmed prediction of mainstream astronomy.
• Not understanding the English word "may" or the word "and" or the phrase "as predicted".
• Lying by quote mining.

A point to add is that 67P is even less hydrated. No astronomer has a problem with that. No one with a brain has a problems with 67P having many millions of tonnes of ice! The physical facts remain the same. 67P has a density of ~0.5 g/cc and so is not solid rock. 67P has a high porosity and so is not solid rock. 67P has at least 17% ice and so is not solid rock.
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

Quote:

ESA's Rosetta Mission has followed Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko from 3.6 au inbound to 3.6 au outbound. Many results are largely unexpected, as compared to previous models based on in situ and ground-based observations of Jupiter-family comets. The main topics discussed in this review are (1) the importance of the large concavities characterizing the 67P nucleus, that, (2) coupled to the nucleus obliquity, make seasons an unexpectedly important source of many phenomena observed in this and probably in most comets; (3) the mostly uniform distribution of ices over the nucleus surface; (4) 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. 67P nucleus may have never experienced any collision at speeds larger than 1 m s−1.
...
Elemental abundances of CI chondrites imply a dust-to-gas mass ratio of three and a porosity of 70 per cent (Davidsson et al. 2016). The region of the proto-solar nebula where 67P accreted may have been drier than those where CI chondrites have formed.

67P still has ice sublimating and producing the coma and tails.

[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.
Most of the recent insanity from Sol88

This post: He lies by quote mining me explaining his obvious lunacy about comes and basic English.
Persists in his insanity about a mainstream ice and dust The Refractory-to-Ice Mass Ratio in Comets paper Part 1.
Persists in his insanity about a mainstream ice and dust The Refractory-to-Ice Mass Ratio in Comets paper Part 2.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

More on Persists in his insanity about a mainstream ice and dust The Refractory-to-Ice Mass Ratio in Comets paper - part 2.
We already have his insanity of

• Citing an irrelevant, mainstream ice and dust comet paper in a thread about his demented dogma.
• Expecting comets to have the same or more water than CI-chondrites when they visit the Sun and lose water by sublimation and CI-chondrites have water basically locked in minerals.
• Obsessing with a probable confirmed prediction of mainstream astronomy.
• Not understanding the English word "may" or the word "and" or the phrase "as predicted".
• Lying by quote mining.

A point to add is that 67P is even less hydrated. No astronomer has a problem with that. No one with a brain has a problems with 67P having many millions of tonnes of ice! The physical facts remain the same. 67P has a density of ~0.5 g/cc and so is not solid rock. 67P has a high porosity and so is not solid rock. 67P has at least 17% ice and so is not solid rock.
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

67P still has ice sublimating and producing the coma and tails.

Porous?

What is the porosity you are using reality check?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Oi, jonesy which has more water, comets or meteorites?

I have answered your irrelevant question, you obfuscating clown. Which asteroids? Which comets? Answer.
And while you're at it, explain what the hell this has to do with your failed woo. Where is your rock? Where is your EDM (lol)? Where are the discharges? Where is your radial field? Why don't asteroids on cometary orbits turn into comets? And so on. Stick to your impossible woo, instead of concentrating on things that are completely irrelevant to it.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Of course, the dirtysnowball!


Actualy, hes a good question for you, how are you going to model the dominant non-volatile component?

never been done before because we ALL know comets are mostly ICE!

Except, one little spanner in the dirtysnowball that you are more than happy to ignore again and again.

The Refractory-to-Ice Mass Ratio in Comets!

And I have already explained, for the hard of thinking, that the ratio is irrelevant. Learn to read. We see ice, we see sublimation. Get over it and concentrate on your failed woo. It was killed by the observations at Halley. Deal with them. It was further killed by the impact at Tempel 1. Deal with that. I think we all know why you keep running away from your failed woo - it failed! Get over it. Go away.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

I don't need maths? Funny, me too!

You don't understand maths. You are numerically illiterate. So deal with what I wrote. Here it is again for the hard of reading;

Quote:

I don't need maths. I need to look at the impact at Tempel 1. I need to look at the CO2 jets entraining it at Hartley 2. I need to look at it around Hale-Bopp and Holmes and Catalina, et al. I need to look at the landslides on 67P. I need to look at the spectrophotometry at 67P. Et boring cetera. Observation is all I need.

So, go ahead and explain that, and stop running away like a frightened little girl.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Yada, yada, yada, lie, lie, lie. Thousands of tonnes of ice excavated at Tempel 1. Shed loads of it around Hartley 2. Solid ice seen around a number of other comets. Ice revealed on 67P after landslides. Enough outgassing to create a diamagnetic cavity. And to stand off the solar wind at > 1500 km well after perihelion. Far further at Halley. Et boring cetera. That is all observed. Indisputable. And what have you got? Non-existent rock, and scientifically impossible electric woo!

Well then you can still as less snowydirtysnowballs then.

Good luck!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Well then you can still as less snowydirtysnowballs then.

Good luck!

Try writing that in English. You have just put random words in a random order. How is anyone supposed to understand that?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

You do not need to be an expert in a narrow discipline like tusenfem.

You need common sense and be open to new ideas thereby discovering a completely new mechanism that could explain previously unexplained observations.

Oh yeah, "common sense" works sooooooo well in plasma physics.
And it is good to have an open mind, but it should not be so far open that your brain falls out (Carl Sagan, if I am not mistaken).

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

You need common sense and be open to new ideas thereby discovering a completely new mechanism that could explain previously unexplained observations.

You mean previous observations that rule out the scientifically impossible claims made 20 years after said observations?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Yes please, include me in the email chain.

You do know we have an indoctrinated expert on plasma double layers right here?

and as he like to say "Every double layer is an electric field but not every electric field is a double layer". True!

Reminds me of his last argument

"Plasma is like a gas but gas is not a plasma"

The riddle'r himself!

If only you would understand ...

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

That would be trying to fit it to an incorrect outdated model! SISO!

What model? This number comes directly from in-situ measurements.

[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.
Most of the recent insanity from Sol88

This post: A pathological lie when Sol88 has been citing mainstream ice and dust comet papers with comet porosity , e.g. the measured porosity of 67P.

For others: From memory, the measured porosity of 67P was 70% to 85%.

Next post: A half rational post which we may have not seen for years!
If lots more comets are found to have a measured ice to dust ratio of < 50% then the conclusion will be that an average comet has more dust than ices. The name of the mainstream model will change from "dirty snowball".

Of course Sol88 cannot stop himself from his pathological need to lie. There is no luck needed because we already model comets as a mixture of ice and dust as the papers he has cited state ! A point in at least 1 paper is that we need to run more models that have more dust than ice.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Oh yeah, "common sense" works sooooooo well in plasma physics.
And it is good to have an open mind, but it should not be so far open that your brain falls out (Carl Sagan, if I am not mistaken).

Are you "open minded" enough to entertain the idea the dust is being charged via impact ionisation then being picked up from the nucleus and removed from the coma ,eventually, by the various electric fields at play?

or


would that make YOUR brain fall out?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

What model? This number comes directly from in-situ measurements.

And then incorrectly modeled! Even you used the Haser model from the '50's

The Rosetta mission has OVER estimated the amount of GAS (ergo "ice") that has left 67P!

Quote:

where the modest content of ices (within brackets) well summarizes the dominant non-volatile component.

Between the sizes of 0.1 and 1 mm, 99 per cent of the dust mass is in the form of compact particles, denser than the nucleus.

This implies that much of the nucleus mass is in the form of mineral aggregates (silicates and sulfides), so that a better definition may be ‘mineral
organic(e)s’.

At 75-85 percent porosity! ouch

So in 29 September 2016 we thought comets were uniform mix of fluffy dust and ice!

Quote:

Instead, the investigations have shown that the porosity comes about because the comet is a more or less uniform mixture of ice and ‘fluffy’ dust grains, rather than a honeycomb structure featuring large voids.

Quote:

Indeed, the results show that the small lobe of the comet is consistent with a very loosely compacted (porosity 75–85%) mixture of dust and ice (dust-to-ice ratio 0.4–2.6 by volume) that is fairly homogeneous on the scale of tens of metres. The permittivity value is approximately 1.27.

In 2020 we think

Quote:

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

Quote:

Therefore, comets and KBOs may have less water than CI-chondrites

The Refractory-to-Ice Mass Ratio in Comets

Quote:

well summarizes the dominant non-volatile component

Unexpected and significant findings in comet
67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

Quote:

At perihelion and just after, the dust-to-water mass ratio ranges from 6 to 100 (Fulle et al. 2016).

Unexpected and significant findings in comet
67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

Quote:

The nucleus is thus a highly porous very dusty body with very little ice.

The Nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko – Part I: The global view – nucleus mass, mass-loss, porosity, and implications

Quote:

How dust can leave the nucleus surface is still not understood (Gundlach et al. 2015).

Unexpected and significant findings in comet
67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

How's that coming along team?


All mainstream peer reviewed papers!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Oh yeah, "common sense" works sooooooo well in plasma physics.
And it is good to have an open mind, but it should not be so far open that your brain falls out (Carl Sagan, if I am not mistaken).

Perhaps the expert plasma man, can tell us if a magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field is able to exist in a magnetically turbulent environment?

as per

Quote:

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.

A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet



We seem to have a stand off with me 'ol mate RC.

I say Yes, reality check (and jonesdave116) says No.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Are you "open minded" enough to entertain the idea the dust is being charged via impact ionisation then being picked up from the nucleus and removed from the coma ,eventually, by the various electric fields at play?

or


would that make YOUR brain fall out?

To believe that it would probably require that his brain had already fallen out!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

If only you would understand ...

Got a fairly handy grasp!

Not every electric field is a double layer.

Double layers are special electric fields! Doing special plasmery stuff, like this!

Quote:

Double layer

A double layer is a structure in a plasma and consists of two parallel layers with opposite electrical charge. The sheets of charge cause a strong electric field and a correspondingly sharp change in voltage (electrical potential) across the double layer. Ions and electrons which enter the double layer are accelerated, decelerated, or reflected by the electric field. In general, double layers (which may be curved rather than flat) separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics. Double layers are found in a wide variety of plasmas, from discharge tubes to space plasmas to the Birkeland currents supplying the Earth’s aurora, and are especially common in current-carrying plasmas. Compared to the sizes of the plasmas which contain them, double layers are very thin (typically ten Debye lengths), with widths ranging from a few millimeters for laboratory plasmas to thousands of kilometres for astrophysical plasmas.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Perhaps the expert plasma man, can tell us if a magnetic field aligned ambipolar electric field is able to exist in a magnetically turbulent environment?

as per A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet



We seem to have a stand off with me 'ol mate RC.

I say Yes, reality check (and jonesdave116) says No.

Nope. You are talking about a double layer. Different thing. The ambipolar field exists courtesy of the outgassing. Which shouldn't be there, according to your woo. It exists to maintain quasi-neutrality where the solar wind electrons and ions are neutralised by the cometary ions and electrons. And of course, the latter shouldn't be there, according to your woo.
Take away the sublimation products, and there is no need for the ambipolar field to exist.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Got a fairly handy grasp!

Not every electric field is a double layer.

Double layers are special electric fields! Doing special plasmery stuff, like this!

And they don't exist at comets. So, something of a moot point, n'est-ce pas?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

To believe that it would probably require that his brain had already fallen out!

Explain.



Nob.

[Sol88]

Quote:

It exists to maintain quasi-neutrality where the solar wind electrons and ions are neutralised by the cometary ions and electrons.

Mmmmm......

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

And then incorrectly modeled! Even you used the Haser model from the '50's

The Rosetta mission has OVER estimated the amount of GAS (ergo "ice") that has left 67P!



At 75-85 percent porosity! ouch

So in 29 September 2016 we thought comets were uniform mix of fluffy dust and ice!









In 2020 we think

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


The Refractory-to-Ice Mass Ratio in Comets


Unexpected and significant findings in comet
67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view


Unexpected and significant findings in comet
67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view



The Nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko – Part I: The global view – nucleus mass, mass-loss, porosity, and implications



Unexpected and significant findings in comet
67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

How's that coming along team?


All mainstream peer reviewed papers!

And not a single one of them supports your failed woo. You still have zero rock, and you still have zero EDM (lol), and zero discharges. When were you thinking of dealing with that? Your woo is 100% dead, and all you can do is talk about the successful mainstream model. All very interesting, but has nothing to do with this thread. Which, in case you had forgotten, is about your failed woo. Time to dig out the mag data and show us these non-existent discharges that are sculpting the surface. And the water being created by the non-existent O ions that aren't being created by this non-existent electric woo. Any chance, after over a decade, that you are going to deal with this embarrassing failure?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Mmmmm......

What? Can't read? Want me to quote Deca saying exactly that? Say the word.

[jonesdave116]

So, back to the subject of this thread - the failed electric comet woo. So, could its last remaining advocate explain how a radial electric field exists alongside a radial magnetic field? And why an elliptical orbit is not affecting a shed load of asteroids in the way that is laughably claimed to affect comets? Or how solar wind H is combining with non-existent O ions to form OH, at 400 km/s, when the solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus for long periods? Or how EDM (lol) can possibly happen in an astrophysical setting, and then manage to evade detection by an instrument that would most definitely detect it? Ditto with the invisible discharges. And how rock is disguising itself as a totally different material that is nothing like rock based on measurements by numerous instruments?
I suggest that the last EC believer on the planet starts dealing with this total pile of fail before even attempting to discuss real science at real comets.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

And not a single one of them supports your failed woo. You still have zero rock, and you still have zero EDM (lol), and zero discharges. When were you thinking of dealing with that? Your woo is 100% dead, and all you can do is talk about the successful mainstream model. All very interesting, but has nothing to do with this thread. Which, in case you had forgotten, is about your failed woo. Time to dig out the mag data and show us these non-existent discharges that are sculpting the surface. And the water being created by the non-existent O ions that aren't being created by this non-existent electric woo. Any chance, after over a decade, that you are going to deal with this embarrassing failure?

Oh deary me but it does.

Comets have less water than meteorites.

Our understanding is EVOLVING. Unlike your 1950's understanding.

What model are we using to achieve

Quote:

it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices

Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

I'll just patiently wait over here, cheers!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Oh deary me but it does.

Comets have less water than meteorites.

Our understanding is EVOLVING. Unlike your 1950's understanding.

What model are we using to achieve Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

I'll just patiently wait over here, cheers!

Lying again. What a surprise. The only people who keep prattling on about the 1950s model are the electric idiots. It is their strawman, and is of no relevance to their failed woo. Which has been sidestepped again, I see. No rock, no electric woo. No science, no mechanisms. Just ignorance and lies.

I repeat;

Quote:

Time to dig out the mag data and show us these non-existent discharges that are sculpting the surface. And the water being created by the non-existent O ions that aren't being created by this non-existent electric woo. Any chance, after over a decade, that you are going to deal with this embarrassing failure?

When are we going to get answers?

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Comets have less water than meteorites.

Really? Which comets? Which meteorites? How much ice is in near Earth asteroids? How much are they outgassing? How much was Hale-Bopp outgassing? And none of this is of any relevance to your failed woo. You need terrestrial rock, and electric woo. You haven't got it. As we have known for decades. So, why are you still here?

[jonesdave116]

Well, it looks like Yuri has figured out how the dust is getting lifted;

Near-perihelion activity of comet67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. A first attempt of non-static analysis.
Skorov, Y. et al (2020)
https://watermark.silverchair.com/st...xuyxSu7ATd0o1Y