The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Indagator

Sol88! A plasma IS a gas!

Noob!

Quote:

However, the 'electric comet' is still PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! TRY AGAIN!

You jump up and down on your high horse and spout PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

but cant explain why? these are mainstream peer reviewed and accepted papers!

Too hard for you?

Why is it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Noob!

He is correct. You are the only one here with zero clue about plasmas. Just like the rest of the electric idiots.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Indagator

First of all, Sol88, the name is INDAGATOR! It's time you show me some respect! I may be the only one willing to help you! Before that happens, of course, you will start answering my questions! Dig? NO answers! NO help!

As an aside, for things to move forward, you will also start ANSWERING all questions posed by ALL posters!



I'm afraid your infantile ramblings and misinterpretations are not convincing anyone in mainstream science! Try again!



You sure as hell don't! Try again!!!



Glad you think so! However, the 'electric comet' is still PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! TRY AGAIN!

Sol88! I am not here to play your stupid, childish games! DONE! Time for you to grow up and start acting like this is important!

Do I have your attention? This is YOUR thread! It's time to start ANSWERING real questions!

Let's start with a couple simple ones ....

As an Aussie, is it fair to say you drive a truck?

Does your truck have a 12-volt battery in it?

Why are there positive and negative terminals on a DC battery?

Your answers, Sir!

Have a real good read of this mainstream paper and get back to me. A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

or you're are more than welcome to pop back under your rock.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Have a real good read of this mainstream paper and get back to me. A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

or you're are more than welcome to pop back under your rock.

And that paper has nothing whatsoever to do with your failed woo. Which is what he asked you about.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Indagator

The 'electric comet' is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! It's existence requires the violation of fundamental, foundational physics! I cannot, under any circumstances, figure out a way to make sense of your ramblings! There is nothing to model! There is no valid physical mechanism to describe the behaviour of an 'electric comet.' NO science! NO physics! NO math! NO model!

However, if you were to answer ALL my questions (remember, I do mainstream science) we might be able to make some progress? Until then ... The 'electric comet' is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

As mentioned, if we can measure it, we can model it! Guess what! You can't measure something that isn't there! For example, the strength of the magnetic field inside 67P's diamagnetic cavity approaches zero! Measured FACT! An electric discharge (i.e., a flow of electric current), according to 'eu/es/ec' religious whinging MUST produce a magnetic field! NONE OBSERVED! Hence, no electric discharge! Observed FACT! Let me restate that another way ...

There are no electric discharges of any measurable consequence at comets! This discharge behaviour is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! Why? There is no 'electric star' with a radial electric field that magically induces a perpetual charge on only a "select few" small solar system bodies. Any thoughts where this might be going?

snipped!

NO science! NO physics! NO thermodynamics! NO cryophysics! NO math! NO model! NO evidence!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Quote:

One of the surprising findings of the Rosetta mission is the presence of suprathermal electrons in the close cometary
plasma environment with energies up to about 100 eV. The population was present already during the weakly outgassing
phases of 67P’s orbit around the Sun (Clark et al. 2015).

Understanding the suprathermal electron population is important, since increased fluxes of the latter have been shown to strongly affect also the cometary ionosphere via electronimpact
ionization (Galand et al. 2016), charge exchange (Wedlund et al. 2017; Heritier et al. 2018), and is thought to affect dust grain charging processes (Gombosi et al. 2015).

Quote:

Such a localized cometary electron current explains the cometary electron density profile in Figure 1, i.e., the two channels of cometary electrons emanating from the high density part of the coma that move along the magnetic field lines in the solar wind frame.

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

Sorry, indigy!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

And that paper has nothing whatsoever to do with your failed woo. Which is what he asked you about.

So, so wrong!

but we already knew that.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So, so wrong!

but we already knew that.

No, it isn't wrong. It says nothing about your complete lack of rock, or your complete lack of a mechanism to explain the gases, or your complete lack of discharges to (or from?) the nucleus, nor about the complete lack of EDM (lol).

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

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

Sorry, indigy!

And again, not only do you not understand that paper, it has nothing to do with your failed woo.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Well, I notice that you do not understand even a word of what I wrote down.
You are just fixed in your misinterpretation of the scientific papers.

Pity, you could have learned something here, but hey, Corona Lock Down!

Your terminology may have gone right over a dinky di Aussie's head.

Down Under they drink VB, Tooheys, XXXX, Coopers, Cascade, Carlton Draught, Little Creatures, James Squire, Matilda Bay, Hahn Super Dry, ... what is this "Corona" of which you speak?

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by Sol88

<content not relevant to The Electric Comet snipped>

Can you please, Sol88, describe, in a few lines, what The Electric Comet Theory* is?

After that, how about showing - quantitatively - how Rosetta observations are consistent with that?

Thanks.

*You know, the topic of this thread.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Have a real good read of this mainstream paper and get back to me. A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet

or you're are more than welcome to pop back under your rock.

Isn't this the paper that has been shown over and over again to be completely irrelevant to what you want it to show? Which you have of course ignored, waited a little, and then brought it back up ...

[Indagator]

Sol88! Science is hard! It takes specific knowledge, dedication, creativity, ...! What you are doing here is NOT science!

Originally Posted by Sol88

Conclusion

Not so fast!

Regarding the 'electric comet,' we are a very long way from drawing any conclusions. You still haven't given us a valid, predictive framework on which to BUILD a model! Remember the diamagnetic cavity? Doesn't it bother you that your 'electric discharges' produce no magnetic fields? Are we talking about a whole new branch of physics to account for this 'ec' anomaly?

Do you not expect magnetic fields to be produced during a discharge? Is it not part of your 'ec' doctrine that electric currents always create magnetic fields? Maybe in the 'eu/ec,' only a "select subset" of electric currents produce magnetic fields. Any thoughts to share? Is the solar wind magnetized? You know the solar wind is not a current? The solar wind is a plasma, and as such, it contains, by definition, an equal number of positive and negative charges within a given volume of space.

Do you not expect broadband EM interference during a discharge? It happens all the time in Earth's atmosphere in conjunction with lightning strikes! During Rosetta's time at 67P, there were no observed communication problems related to broadband EM disturbances. No lost data! No confused instrumentation! Again, are we looking at a whole new branch of physics to account for this 'ec' discrepancy? Or are 'ec' discharges magical? Can you see why I say the 'electric comet' violates basic laws of physics? Can you not see how these violations render the 'electric comet' physically impossible? Can you see why people are confused by your ... religion?

The burden of proof is incredibly high in science! For more than a decade you've been making wild, physics violating claims! You don't get a free pass anymore! What do we need to do in order to plug these gaping holes?

Try again!

Originally Posted by Sol88

Comets are drier than the rocks we call carbonaceous Chondrites.

Not so fast!

Statistically speaking, our sample size is far to small to draw that conclusion! Furthermore, before you can make a statement like that, you need to state your assumptions! What are your 'ec' assumptions, Sol88? From what I've read, some of your 'ec' assumptions are untenable. Remember, context is also very important here! And what of the comet-asteroid continuum? Did you know that Whipple, in 1950, was the first person to introduce the idea of a comet-asteroid continuum? True story! Would you like the quote? It might be a good test of your comprehensive reading skills! Just kidding! You can't read!

Try again!

Originally Posted by Sol88

Bloody hard work over the 10 odd years weve been discussing that comets are moslty ICE (the dirtysnowball) and moslty ROCK.

Not so fast!

You have a religious fixation with binary (i.e.., right vs. wrong) and vague/imprecise terminology (e.g., "mostly"). As far as I know, you are the only one on this thread that uses the word "mostly" as a descriptor of volatile content. Problem is, we don't know how much water is in every comet and asteroid in the solar system. Remember the size of our statistical sample? There's also the difference between volatile ices and hydrated minerals. One will sublimate, the other will not. Have you done sufficient research to know the ratio between volatile ices and hydrated minerals in every object sampled? Of course not! And how is your definition of "mostly" changed by the observed sublimation of volatile ices? Now, because this is your thread, Sol88, perhaps you could give a precise definition of what "mostly" means? Are we talking 50.1% "mostly" ice, or is "mostly" in 'ec-speak' greater than 75%? Will you take a chance and give us a number? You know, Sol88, I've never really understood your use of the word. It's not really a valid scientific term ... far too vague. Can you think of any other vague terms that might lead one to an erroneous and impossible conclusion? Hee! Hee!

Another serious problem for the 'ec' to address? We know for a FACT that comets contain ices! The sublimation of these ices is required to produce the observed cometary plasma! Case in point? MIRO was designed to "see" neutral water vapour! ALICE was designed to "see" shrapnel produced by ionization. How do you address the fact that MIRO observes water being directly ejected from the nucleus surface? Would you like a quote? Or would you prefer to hide in the corner? I find it funny that you don't want to work with me. Hee! Hee! You "always" throw a tantrum, or make some dismissive comment, and then run away to hide! We still need to finish our discussions of Lisse et al (2006) and Deca et al (2017)!

As an aside, I can provide you with information that shows some comets may actually contain more that 50% water! Fun stuff!

A bigger question, perhaps, as relates to the comet-asteroid continuum, is what mantle thickness is required to throttle sublimation, thus converting a known comet into an asteroid? What do you think, Sol88? A valid question? How does the 'ec' address the comet-asteroid continuum if it ignores observed sublimation?

Try again!

Originally Posted by Sol88

Our understanding is comets are mainly rocky. As stated by A'Hearn.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Context! Context! Context! FACT! Dr. A'Hearn knew that comets were made of volatile ices and dust! His scientific perspective/opinion never changed on that point! You know, Sol88, I laugh every time you cherry pick that one quote from Dr. A'Hearn's paper! Hee! Hee! Did you ever go looking for A'Hearn et al (20XX) to see what he really had to say about comets and rock? Of course not! That would require courage! That paper would force you to face an uncomfortable truth. But you don't do truth, do you Sol88?

Allow me add my voice to the chorus --- FACT! Comets are NOT made of rock! Comets are made of volatile ices and dust! FACT! The ice and dust composition of each comet will be unique and it will change with time due to sublimation of the volatile component!

Sol88! What you have been doing in this thread is NOT science! Your 'conclusions' are not, in any way, consistent with fundamental physics and scientific observation!

By the way, do you think that the diamagnetic cavity is actually a double layer? None of your ramblings ever make any sense to me! Do you know why I have trouble understanding you, Sol88? I do science! You do religion! We're not even speaking the same language!!!

Oh! And to stir the pot ... There are no double layers at comets!

Hee! Hee! Have a nice day!

[Sol88]

Oh, indigator.

Another plasma numtpy!

Back up into the thread, it's all been discussed.

The last point a was making is before the diamagnetic cavity has formed we already had, deflection of the solarwind and impaction ionisation in the winter hemisphhere

So jd116 point of the diamagnetic cavity stops what ive been saying is a bust!

and no the diamagnetic cavity is not a double layer, its a plasma sheath.

You know stock standard PLASMA stuff.

Oh, A'Hearn, lets wheel him out again shall we?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Your terminology may have gone right over a dinky di Aussie's head.

Down Under they drink VB, Tooheys, XXXX, Coopers, Cascade, Carlton Draught, Little Creatures, James Squire, Matilda Bay, Hahn Super Dry, ... what is this "Corona" of which you speak?

Ahhhhhh...beer...

Stop drinking two years ago.

lost 51kg Never been fitter healthier and more ALIVE, alert and switched on than now.

Experts trained in the field by our best experts, to tell me what i should do because i'm not an expert????



Never again, learn for yourself. Just too throw it out there bacteria rule the electric universe! (when you work out how and why...The Hungry Microbiome 4:03) bye bye gout, diverticulitis, IBS, high blood pressure, brain fog, per-diabetes, cholesterol. All because I fed the bugs!

All there in the first place because of experts and was told by experts to take these drugs for the rest of my life...bloody experts.

So, I have an issue with the experts that still tow the party line.

But there are a few brave (inside academia) question the current paradigm.


Sublimation is a bust!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

The only reason comets are fluffy, highly porous rocky-like objects. Is the mass the RSI experiment returned.

A pathological lie that the RSI mass makes comets fluffy or porous.

"On Earth" stupidity is a repeat of density = mass insanity about the RSI experiment.
What the RSI experiment measured was the mass of 67P. As far as RSI was concerned 67P could be a micro-black hole or a solid diamond or a big block of iron ! The CONSERT experiment measured the porosity of 67P. Other instruments on Rosetta detected fluffy particles suggesting that at least the surface of 67P is "fluffy".

[Indagator]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Originally Posted by Indagator

Sol88! A plasma IS a gas!

Noob!

Is that the best you can do for an insult? LAME and PATHETIC, Sol88! So typical! So creative! Colour me amused! Hee! Hee!

FYI? I can't model stars if I don't account for the FACT that stars are made of hot "gaseous" matter!

Why don't you tell me about the plasma beta, Sol88? Show us how smart you are! This will be good for long laugh! Hee! Hee! Who's the cute little plasma numpty, Sol88? Who's the real plasma ignoramus?

Originally Posted by Sol88

You jump up and down on your high horse and spout PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

but cant explain why? these are mainstream peer reviewed and accepted papers!

Too hard for you?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

NO! These mainstream peer-reviewed papers are too hard for YOU to understand/comprehend! Can we discuss Deca et al (2017), please? Or Lisse et al (2006)? Or are you too AFRAID to look through the telescope?

I, and others in this thread, have shown you time and again how the 'electric comet' is physically impossible! It cannot exist without violating fundamental physics and observational data! How ya doing with that 12-volt battery question? The one about the two terminals?

We observe ice on the surface of 67P!
We observe sublimation of volatile ices from the surface of 67P!
We observe ionization of these sublimation products as they move away from the nucleus surface!
We observe mass wasting of icy material on the surface of 67P! And when gas production due to sublimation is high enough, ...
We observe a region of cometary plasma that is, simply put, devoid of magnetic fields!

We don't observe rock! We observe DUST! A very important distinction!
We don't observe thermodynamic combustion processes altering the surface albedo! And ...
We don't observe electric discharges in the RPC data!

I could go one! And I will! Now that the winter term is done, I should be able to find more time to hang out at the ISF! Are you excited, Sol88? I am! Hee! Hee!

Originally Posted by Sol88

Why is it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Not very bright are you?

WRONG QUESTION! Remember, this is your 'ec' thread! Stop running from your responsibilities, Sol88! Here's the real question ... Using known physics, how is the 'electric comet' physically possible? Get with it! MIRO detects water vapour coming off the comet surface! Whatcha gonna do? You can't dismiss it! Whatcha gonna do?

Of course, we all know how you'll respond! So, get on with it ...! Hee! Hee! Hee! What a PATHETIC joke!

NO science! NO physics! NO thermodynamics! NO cryophysics! NO math! NO model! NO evidence!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...ALL other data points to an error, as I've said for ahwile but dont have the math skills to porve it.

A pathological lie that any other data points exist showing that the RSI mass is in error.
Insanity that he is the only person in the world that can do math when he knows the math has been done! When people do the calculations, it creates at least ~35GV - a voltage so high that we would see the radiation from antimatter created by particles crashing into 67P.
Electric Comets III: Mass vs. Charge (December 7, 2014)

There is no evidence that 67P was charged during the RSI measurements. I recall evidence that Rosetta had a charge (dust particles accelerated into a detector?) and a comment in the above blog says "The GIADA dust analysis results were reported a little while back, and in that report they mentioned a voltage on the spacecraft of around -5 - -10V."

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

This was also seen b Rosetta at asteroid Lutetia, funnily enough by some that, unlike reality check knows what they are talking about.

A new? "This was also seen b Rosetta at asteroid Lutetia" lie.

Asteroid 21 Lutetia: Low Mass, High Density by M. Pätzold, et. al.
For 21 Lutetia, Rosetta actually measured a lower mass than a pre-flyby estimate. What makes its bulk density one of the highest known for asteroids is improved modeling of its volume using the OSIRIS camera and ground observations using adaptive optics.

As for Pathological lie that any other data points exist showing that the RSI mass is wrong: No radiation from antimatter formed from particles accelerated by ~35GV has been detected for any comet or asteroid.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
Most of the recent insanity from Sol88 from ~10 March 2020
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's demented dogma, etc.

This post: Pathological lie when his demented dogma has been shown to be physically impossible from the start of this thread 11 year ago, e.g. the density of comets is ~0.6 g/cc which is not his dogma's dement for actual rock.
Next post: Pathological citation of mainstream ice and dust papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Next post: Pathological citation of mainstream ice and dust papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Next post: Lies about posters and posters.
Indagator asked about Sol88's demented dogma and got mainstream ice and dust papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Next post: "Another plasma numtpy" insult, refers to his previous "plasma is not a gas "insanity, irrelevant diamagnetic cavity rant.
Next post: Mostly nonsense with a bit insane "I am not an expert" rant. If he is not an expert then he has to trust what experts say, e.g. the astronomers writing ice and dust comet papers he has cited, tusenfem (plasma physicist)jonesdave116 (studied planetary science).

ETA
Next post: Demented question when he has known for 11 years that his dogma is physically impossible.
Next post: Insane lie about jonesdave116's post.
jonesdave116 wrote Sublimation is observed. In-situ and in the lab. It cannot fail to happen if the temperature of the ice exceeds its sublimation temperature.
That is an physical fact. Thus the ice we detect on comets and that Sol88 agrees is on comets (thus the insanity of the lie) will sublimate when it passes the sublimation temperature.
Next post: His demented dogma and he lies about it.
Next post: A pathological lie that Yu. V. Skorov says no sublimation ices of comets followed by his persistent insanity of rciting mainstream papers irrelevant to his demented dogma.
Next post: A pathological lie about spacecraft charging which is textbook physics
jonesdave116 wrote Errr, let's start with rocky planets being spat out of gas giants. And then doing handbrake turns around the solar system within human memory. ... which is a list of some of the physically impossible things that Sol88 and his demented cult believe in.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

But there are a few brave (inside academia) question the current paradigm.

Probably yet another pathological lie given his hundreds of lies that ice and dust comet papers are about his demented dogma of comet are actual rock, etc.

List the papers published by these "few brave" academics questioning the current paradigm which is that comets are a porous mixture of ice and dust with a density less than water, etc.
They have to explicitly state that comets are not a porous mixture of ice and dust with a density less than water, etc.

Do not include any of the papers you have been lying about for years:
The insane insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's demented dogma, etc.
Do not include papers where astronomers are using standard terms for consolidated ice and dust, e.g. "rock".
Do not lie about the papers or the current paradigm. For example the current paradigm is not that comets must have more ice then dust. It is that comets are expected to average out to have more ice then dust but finding more comets in the future like Tempel 1 and 67P may change the average to be more dust and ice. That is not a change in the paradigm, it is the standard scientific process.

[Sol88]

Dear Indagator

Are you going to state why you think it's physically impossible?

as per jonesdave116's argument of

Quote:

The 'electric comet' is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! It's existence requires the violation of fundamental, foundational physics!

.

You tell me why you think the electric comet is a violation of fundamental, foundational physics!

Cant set you straight if you cant/wont answer the question.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Sublimation is a bust!

Sublimation is observed. In-situ and in the lab. It cannot fail to happen if the temperature of the ice exceeds its sublimation temperature. So, when Hale-Bopp came tootling into the solar system back in the mid-90s, the weak sunlight heated the nucleus. Not a lot. Not enough to cause H₂O to sublime. However, what heat there was penetrated the nucleus, and reached CO ice. The sublimation temperature of CO is ~ 30 K (rather cold). The heat that reached it was sufficient to cause the CO to sublime. Quite vigorously, as it is a so-called supervolatile. This was seen by scientists, to whom it was no great surprise. On the other hand, the electric idiot Thornhill saw a press release (I expect) and immediately thought that it must be water ice and gas. And then went into print saying how this was impossible at those distances. And therein lies just one of the defining differences between real science, and the type of unscientific nonsense that you believe. One is based on actual science from observation, theory, experiment etc, while the other is based on ignorance, lies, obfuscation, and a pre-determined, quasi-religious belief in a mythology-based bunch of woo.
Whatever electric universe is, it is nothing to do with science.

[Sol88]

Best you stick with the simpleton story then jd116. It's obviously much easier for you to understand.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Can you please, Sol88, describe, in a few lines, what The Electric Comet Theory* is?

After that, how about showing - quantitatively - how Rosetta observations are consistent with that?

Thanks.

*You know, the topic of this thread.

Comets are ROCKY objects discharging in the solar plasma flow.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Dear Indagator

Are you going to state why you think it's physically impossible?
as per jonesdave116's argument of .

Errr, let's start with rocky planets being spat out of gas giants. And then doing handbrake turns around the solar system within human memory.
And getting close enough to Earth to turn it into a molten slag heap, yet mysteriously only hitting it with giant lightning bolts that blow off huge intact pieces of rock. Which turn out not to be rock at all, based on numerous measurements from numerous instruments. And contain material that can only have been formed in a very cold part of the nascent solar system.
And then we have the non-existent radial field, which would do nasty things to the solar wind, which are not observed. And cannot be radial, given that we already have a radial magnetic field.
And this impossible, unobserved field is supposed to make the non-existent rock start discharging, having somehow built up charge where there is supposed to be little charge, and then discharging it where there is lots. And yet fails to do this to asteroids and spacecraft on similar orbits.
And then we have the water and other sublimated gases. According to Thornhill, we have EDM (lol) machining O^- from the non-existent rock. EDM is a human invented process. It does not, and cannot, occur in nature. And then the non-existent O^- gets smacked by a H⁺ ion from the solar wind at ~ 350 km/s, and they just stick together to form OH. No idea where he's getting water from, as he claimed there wasn't any, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
And then there are the jets. Discharges according to Thornhill, but not according to magnetometers and spectrometers.
And...................well, you get the point. Whatever that heap of fail is, it is most certainly not science. It is on a par with Jack and the Beanstalk in terms of its scientific validity.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Comets are ROCKY objects discharging in the solar plasma flow.

Well, that's a bust, isn't it? No rock, no discharges. As proven. Next.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Sublimation is observed. In-situ and in the lab. It cannot fail to happen if the temperature of the ice exceeds its sublimation temperature. So, when Hale-Bopp came tootling into the solar system back in the mid-90s, the weak sunlight heated the nucleus. Not a lot. Not enough to cause H₂O to sublime. However, what heat there was penetrated the nucleus, and reached CO ice. The sublimation temperature of CO is ~ 30 K (rather cold). The heat that reached it was sufficient to cause the CO to sublime. Quite vigorously, as it is a so-called supervolatile. This was seen by scientists, to whom it was no great surprise. On the other hand, the electric idiot Thornhill saw a press release (I expect) and immediately thought that it must be water ice and gas. And then went into print saying how this was impossible at those distances. And therein lies just one of the defining differences between real science, and the type of unscientific nonsense that you believe. One is based on actual science from observation, theory, experiment etc, while the other is based on ignorance, lies, obfuscation, and a pre-determined, quasi-religious belief in a mythology-based bunch of woo.
Whatever electric universe is, it is nothing to do with science.

That's what was thought, correct.

but Yu. V. Skorov says no.

Quote:

Conclusions. In the framework of the presented model, which can be considered common in terms of assumptions and physical
parameters in the cometary community, the dust removal by a gas drag force is not a plausible physical mechanism.

The sublimation of not only water ice, but also of super-volatile ice (i.e., CO) is unable to remove dust grains for illumination conditions corresponding
to 1.3 AU. A way out of this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.

Fits my theory, doesn't fit yours!

how does your sublimation "break" thru the consolidated surface to the "ice/s" producing the "jets"?

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

This is of course down to the layer were there is less "ice/s" than a STONY(rocky) consolidated nucleus? as per

Quote:

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

but Patzold reckons they are nothing more than

Quote:

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

Martin Pätzold

not A'Hearn though, he's understanding (our) was that comets

Quote:

has been evolving more toward mostly rock

but you are correct indigy, mostly is not a very scientific term.

but all of the above would stop anything like this from happening for sure on

Quote:

the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice

Dust charging and transport on airless planetary bodies

Quote:

We experimentally show that the emission and re-absorption of photoelectron and/or secondary electron at the walls of microcavities formed between neighboring dust particles below the surface are responsible for generating unexpectedly
large negative charges and intense particle-particle repulsive forces to mobilize and lift off dust particles

I'm glad you think none of this is true, indiggy!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Errr, let's start with rocky planets being spat out of gas giants. And then doing handbrake turns around the solar system within human memory.
And getting close enough to Earth to turn it into a molten slag heap, yet mysteriously only hitting it with giant lightning bolts that blow off huge intact pieces of rock. Which turn out not to be rock at all, based on numerous measurements from numerous instruments. And contain material that can only have been formed in a very cold part of the nascent solar system.
And then we have the non-existent radial field, which would do nasty things to the solar wind, which are not observed. And cannot be radial, given that we already have a radial magnetic field.
And this impossible, unobserved field is supposed to make the non-existent rock start discharging, having somehow built up charge where there is supposed to be little charge, and then discharging it where there is lots. And yet fails to do this to asteroids and spacecraft on similar orbits.
And then we have the water and other sublimated gases. According to Thornhill, we have EDM (lol) machining O^- from the non-existent rock. EDM is a human invented process. It does not, and cannot, occur in nature. And then the non-existent O^- gets smacked by a H⁺ ion from the solar wind at ~ 350 km/s, and they just stick together to form OH. No idea where he's getting water from, as he claimed there wasn't any, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
And then there are the jets. Discharges according to Thornhill, but not according to magnetometers and spectrometers.
And...................well, you get the point. Whatever that heap of fail is, it is most certainly not science. It is on a par with Jack and the Beanstalk in terms of its scientific validity.

Great, tell me about spacecraft charging!

In your universe it's physically impossible.

Quote:

And contain material that can only have been formed in a very cold part of the nascent solar system.

and Wild 2 found?

The nebular hypothesis is a bust!

How do terrestrial rock end u in a comet like Tempel 1?

Quote:

From its orbit in space, Spitzer’s infrared spectrograph closely observed the materials ejected from Tempel 1 when Deep Impact's probe dove into the comet’s surface. Astronomers spotted the signatures of solid chemicals never seen before in comets, such as carbonates (chalk) and smectite (clay), metal sulfides (like Fool’s Gold), and carbon-containing molecules called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, found in barbecue grills or automobile exhaust on Earth.

Lisse says the clay and carbonates were surprises because they typically require liquid water to make – and liquid water isn’t found in the regions of deep space where comets form. Also surprising was the superabundance of crystalline silicates, material formed only at red-hot temperatures found inside the orbit of Mercury.

Scientists Gaining Clearer Picture of Comet Makeup and Origin

As indiggy says BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

but Yu. V. Skorov says no.

No he didn't, that is another lie. And he has a more recent paper that I flagged up in here just days ago. So, you can forget about that. Not that it has anything to do with your impossible, failed woo. I wish you'd stick to that failed woo, because the further you get away from it, the more that your lack of understanding of any relevant science becomes a handicap to any sort of sane discussion.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Great, tell me about spacecraft charging!

In your universe it's physically impossible.

Is another lie. It has been known about for many decades. And was expected. They operate within the Debye sphere. Electrons are more mobile.....et bleeding cetera. Stick to your woo, yes?

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

Dust charging and transport on airless planetary bodies

Yep, asteroids, the Moon, comets at very low activity rates. And...................?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Is another lie. It has been known about for many decades. And was expected. They operate within the Debye sphere. Electrons are more mobile.....et bleeding cetera. Stick to your woo, yes?

not what was found during the Tethered Satellite System Reflight (TSS-1R) experiments on Space Shuttle Columbia's STS-75 mission now was it champ!

what was found was.

Quote:

Models, accepted by scientists for more than 30 years, are incorrect and must be rewritten. This assessment follows analysis by a joint U.S.-Italian Tethered Satellite investigating team of the information gathered during the mission.

Quote:

"Perhaps the most significant finding," Stone said, "is that tether currents proved to be up to three times greater than existing theoretical models predicted prior to the
mission. With the amount of power generated being directly proportional to the current, this bodes well for technological applications."

EARLY FINDINGS FROM TETHERED SATELLITE MISSION POINT TO REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES

poor jonesy, out played at every turn...numpty.

You should get together with indigator, what a team...of completely clueless indoctrinated numpties.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

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

LIAR. Want me to resurrect the post that shows your lies about that paper? They say it is consistent with ice. Quit lying. It is pathetic. Typical, but pathetic.

[jonesdave116]

Quote:

not what was found during the Tethered Satellite System Reflight (TSS-1R) experiments on Space Shuttle Columbia's STS-75 mission now was it champ!

Is another lie. That was precisely as expected until a design fault caused the tether to break. As you have been told umpteen times before, going back over a decade to BAUT/ Cosmoquest. Want me to find the posts where you were told this? And it has nothing to do with your impossible, failed woo. Stick to the woo, yes?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

but Yu. V. Skorov says no.

A pathological lie that Yu. V. Skorov says no sublimation ices of comets

jonesdave116 wrote Sublimation is observed. In-situ and in the lab. It cannot fail to happen if the temperature of the ice exceeds its sublimation temperature.
The rest of the post is when the observed ice on comets will sublimate.

The Yu. V. Skorov quote from his paper states that ices will sublimate but their model finds that the gas from the sublimating ices will not drag dust from the surface.

[Sol88]

The TSS-1R is a mini comet!

Talking about charging The effects of spacecraft charging and outgassing on the LADEE ion measurements

Quote:

Spacecraft outgassing is an important problem for spacecraft contamination. On the one hand, the outgas-sing products such as water and organics can condense onto optical surfaces and degrade the instrument performance. On the other hand, the artificial vapors can be confused with actual atmosphere and make itharder to do in situ mass spectrometer measurements. On a long-term scale, spacecraft outgassing should decrease with time through desorption and diffusion processes. But for a specific period, outgassing can be enhanced by spacecraft slews and payload activities [Uy et al.,2003;Schläppi et al.,2010]. Although mate-rials used in spacecraft have been carefully selected for their outgassing behavior, spacecraft-contributed gases are still found in all kinds of missions such as the Apollo 15 [Hoffman et al.,1972], Solar andHeliospheric Observatory (SOHO) [McMullin et al.,2002], Cassini-Huygens [Haemmerle and Gerhard,2006],and Rosetta [Schläppi et al.,2010].

Oh, Rosetta

Quote:

The main contaminants are water, which is adsorbed on cold surfaces, and organics from the spacecraft structure, electronics, and insulations. Decomposed lubricant material can give a significant contribution to the total background. Fortunately for Rosetta, outgassing of the spacecraft will play a minor role when the comet is close to perihelion; only in the early phase of the mission the outgassing may be larger than the cometary signature.

Influence of spacecraft outgassing on the exploration of tenuous atmospheres with in situ mass spectrometry


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Great, tell me about spacecraft charging!

In your universe it's physically impossible.

A pathological lie about spacecraft charging which is textbook physics that can be understood by high school science students.
The metal that spacecraft are made of can trap solar wind ions or electrons. That is physically possible, observed and probably designed for (or ignored because it has no effect).

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Is another lie. That was precisely as expected until a design fault caused the tether to break. As you have been told umpteen times before, going back over a decade to BAUT/ Cosmoquest. Want me to find the posts where you were told this? And it has nothing to do with your impossible, failed woo. Stick to the woo, yes?

Quote:

The main contaminants are water, which is adsorbed on cold surfaces, and organics from the spacecraft structure, electronics, and insulations. Decomposed lubricant material can give a significant contribution to the total background. Fortunately for Rosetta, outgassing of the spacecraft will play a minor role when the comet is close to perihelion; only in the early phase of the mission the outgassing may be larger than the cometary signature.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

The TSS-1R is a mini comet!

Talking about charging The effects of spacecraft charging and outgassing on the LADEE ion measurements



Oh, Rosetta
Influence of spacecraft outgassing on the exploration of tenuous atmospheres with in situ mass spectrometry


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry? Have you gone full retard again? What has that got to do with anything? You do realise that the first detections of water were from observations from very close to the nucleus limb? And said water was most definitely not of earthly origin? D/H ratio? I really do not see how any of this nonsense is addressing your impossible, failed woo. Why not deal with the failed woo? Because you know it has failed!

[Sol88]

Yup, just as I thought.

Whoosh straight over your dirtysnowball head!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!