ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th August 2017, 02:32 PM   #201
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Thumbs down Sol88: "Interesting" ignorance - main belt comets debunk his comets are rock delusion

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
21 August 2017 Sol88: "Interesting" ignorance because main-belt comets show that his comets are rocks delusions are just that!
According to your delusions, the only bodies that can be comets are ones coming from the other system to the inner system. Main-belt comets cannot exist in your ignorant and deluded dogma !

On the other hand, there is the real world. In the real world ices sublimate within the snow line (about 5 AU). Asteroids may have ices. These ices can be exposed making some main-belt asteroids into temporary comets.

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th August 2017 at 02:41 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 02:42 PM   #202
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Thumbs down Sol88: "Curiouser" ignorance - main belt comets debunk his comets are rock delusion

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Curiouser and curiouser
21 August 2017 Sol88: "Curiouser" ignorance because main-belt comets show that his comets are rocks delusions are just that!

21 August 2017 Sol88: Inane lying about real science that is not his comets are rocks, etc. delusions.
He lies by highlighting text irrelevant to his delusions and quote mining.
THE EXTRAORDINARY MULTI-TAILED MAIN-BELT COMET P/2013 P5
Quote:
3. DISCUSSION
Processes invoked to explain mass loss from asteroids include sublimation of near surface ice, electrostatic levitation of dust, impact, and rotational instability (Jewitt 2012). The orbit of P5 lies near the inner edge of the asteroid belt, in the vicinity of the Flora family of S-type asteroids. These objects have been associated with the LL chondrites, which themselves reflect metamorphism to temperatures ~800°C to 960°C (Keil 2000). As such, P5 is an unlikely carrier of water ice, and sublimation is unlikely to account for the observed activity. Neither is it likely that P5 could be a comet captured from the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud comet reservoirs; numerical simulations show that such capture is effectively impossible in the modern solar system (Fernández et al. 2002). Impact is another potential source of dust in the asteroid belt. However, the five month age spread of the dust tails (Table 3) and the absence of fading in the photometry (Table 2) both argue strongly against impact as a plausible explanation for the activity in P5.
The surviving hypothesis is that P5 is a body showing rotational mass-shedding, presumably from torques imposed by solar radiation...

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th August 2017 at 02:50 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 03:00 PM   #203
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie about Jewitt et. al.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Tell what I'd put my money on,
21 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about Jewitt et. al.
THE EXTRAORDINARY MULTI-TAILED MAIN-BELT COMET P/2013 P5 list electrostatic levitation of dust and exclude it in the text Sol88 does not quote !
Quote:
The surviving hypothesis is that P5 is a body showing rotational mass-shedding, presumably from torques imposed by solar radiation.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 03:09 PM   #204
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Can anyone give me a summary what this discussion is about?
This is Sol88 showing his ignorance yet again by not knowing that main-belt comets are nothing to do with his delusions about comets. Their existence even debunks his delusions because they do not have cometary orbits and the activity can even be unrelated to the orbit, e.g. impacts exposing ices.

Aside from that there is some interesting science about the causes of asteroids becoming temporary comets. The Active Asteroids by Dave Jewitt (one of the authors of the cited paper) lists them
Quote:
Some asteroids eject dust, unexpectedly producing transient, comet-like comae and tails. First ascribed to the sublimation of near-surface water ice, mass losing asteroids (also called "main-belt comets") can in fact be driven by a surprising diversity of mechanisms. In this paper, we consider eleven dynamical asteroids losing mass, in nine of which the ejected material is spatially resolved. We address mechanisms for producing mass loss including rotational instability, impact ejection, electrostatic repulsion, radiation pressure sweeping, dehydration stresses and thermal fracture, in addition to the sublimation of ice. In two objects (133P and 238P) the repetitive nature of the observed activity leaves ice sublimation as the only reasonable explanation while, in a third ((596) Scheila), a recent impact is the cause. Another impact may account for activity in P/2010 A2 but this tiny object can also be explained as having shed mass after reaching rotational instability. Mass loss from (3200) Phaethon is probably due to cracking or dehydration at extreme (~1000 K) perihelion temperatures, perhaps aided by radiation pressure sweeping. For the other bodies, the mass loss mechanisms remain unidentified, pending the acquisition of more and better data. While the active asteroid sample size remains small, the evidence for an astonishing diversity of mass loss processes in these bodies is clear.
I have highlighted the evidence of ices sublimating creating 2 of the main-belt comets.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 02:47 PM   #205
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,448
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Funny how out of all the bodies in the asteroid belt on 5 have comas... fail for your theory
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 03:06 PM   #206
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,951
Dup
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 21st August 2017 at 03:37 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 03:37 PM   #207
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,951
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Because they are comets, not asteroids and they are made out of frozen volatilies not rock.

The EC hypothesis would say that Apollo objects should all show comas.
Quote:
Thumbs down Sol88:A lie of "looks like the bulk density has got you mob stumped!"
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
Usual stuff:
15 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of "looks like the bulk density has got you mob stumped!" when it is you has the delusion that comets are rocks and their bulk density is measured to be less than that of water.
The bulk density of comets has been measured for over 67 years and stumps no one who can read which is what makes the statement into a lie.

15 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant delusion about the MUPUS-PEN calibration in the lab being what MUPUS detected on 67P.
This is basic science. We have an instrument. We want to use it to make measurements of a property. We calibrate that instrument using materials with already known properties. For example, we might calibrate a thermometer by looking at what it reads with ice and with boiling water. Using that thermometer to measure the temperature of a person does not make them into ice or boiling water !
Table 1. PEN hammer calibration data is the calibration of the hammer against materials with already known properties.
The
15 August 2017 Sol88: Repeating his delusions that comets are rocks, etc.

15 August 2017 Sol88: The idiocy that a "sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65%" = bulk density.


A homogeneous nucleus for comet 67P/Churyumov– Gerasimenko from its gravity field.
M. Pätzold1, T. andert2, M. Hahn1, S. W. asmar3, J.-P. barriot4, M. K. bird1, b. Häusler2, K. Peter1, S. Tellmann1, e. Grün5, P. r. Weissman6, H. Sierks7, L. Jorda8, r. Gaskell6, f. Preusker9 & f. Scholten9




Geomorphology of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
Samuel P. D. Birch,1‹ Y. Tang,2 A. G. Hayes,1,2 R. L. Kirk,3 D. Bodewits,4 H. Campins,5 Y. Fernandez,5 R. de Freitas Bart,2 N. W. Kutsop,2 H. Sierks,6
J. M. Soderblom,7 S. W. Squyres1,2 and J-B. Vincent6,8


Surface changes on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko suggest a more active past B. Davidsson,5 X. Hu,6 S. F. Hviid,7 J. Knollenberg,7 C. Güttler,6 C. Tubiana,6
S. Fornasier,8 C. Feller,8 P. Hasselmann,8 J.-B. Vincent,7 H. Sierks,6 C. Barbieri,9
P. Lamy,10 R. Rodrigo,11,12 D. Koschny,13 H. U. Keller,7,14 H. Rickman,15,16
M. F. A’Hearn,17 M. A. Barucci,8 J.-L. Bertaux,18 I. Bertini,9 S. Besse,13 D. Bodewits,17 G. Cremonese,19 V. Da Deppo,20 S. Debei,21 M. De Cecco,22 J. Deller,6
J. D. P. Deshapriya,8 M. Fulle,23 P. J. Gutierrez,24 M. Hofmann,6 W.-H. Ip,25 L. Jorda,3 G. Kovacs,6 J.-R. Kramm,6 E. Kührt,7 M. Küppers,13 L. M. Lara,24 M. Lazzarin,9
Z.-Yi Lin,25 J. J. Lopez Moreno,24 S. Marchi,26 F. Marzari,9 S. Mottola,7
G. Naletto,20,27,28 N. Oklay,7 A. Pommerol,1 F. Preusker,7 F. Scholten,7 X. Shi6



Tell you what, have a bit of a read and see what ya reckon, Dancing David, Reality Check.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 04:28 PM   #208
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Thumbs down Sol88: The idiocy of citing papers on comets made of ices and dust

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Tell you what, have a bit of a read and see what ya reckon, Dancing David, Reality Check.
Easy:
22 August 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing papers on comets made of ices and dust in a thread about his comet delusions, e.g. they are rocks.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 06:13 PM   #209
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,951
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Easy:
22 August 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing papers on comets made of ices and dust in a thread about his comet delusions, e.g. they are rocks.
Are they?

Do you agree they are homogeneous on large scales?
Do you agree they are highly porous up to 75%?
Do you also agree the "dust" is very similar to Carbonaceous chondritic meteorites?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 06:59 PM   #210
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Thumbs down Sol88: Repeats the idiocy of citing papers on comets made of ices and dust

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Are they?
Yes so:
22 August 2017 Sol88: Repeats the idiocy of citing papers on comets made of ices and dust in a thread about his comet delusions, e.g. they are rocks.
It gets worse:
22 August 2017 Sol88: A double delusion that comets are only dust and that dust is "very similar to Carbonaceous chondritic meteorites".
Comets are dust and ices. No cited measurement of the composition of dust.

ETA: Composition of comet Halley dust particles from VEGA observations
Quote:
The first direct measurements of the physical and chemical properties of cometary dust, obtained by the dust impact mass analyzer aboard Vega 1 and 2 studying comet Halley, are discussed. Particles of mass less than 10 to the -14th g are much more abundant than was predicted by models. Most of the particles are rich in light elements such as H, C, N, and O, lending support to models that describe cometary material as consisting of radiation-processed ices. Three examples of mass spectra for typical particle compositions are shown.
Composition of comet Halley dust particles from Giotto observations
Quote:
Mass spectra of cometary dust particles measured by the PIA dust particle analyzer aboard the Giotto spacecraft show some unexpected and striking features. First, small particles below 10 to the -14th g are much more abundant than anticipated by models. Second, most of the particles are rich in light elements such as H, C, N, and O, suggesting the validity of models that describe the cometary dust as including organic material. Third, the light elements specifically seem to have a low ratio of mass to volume. Three examples of original mass spectra showing typical compositions are given; these have been measured, and are compared with a computer-simulated mass spectrum.
Isotopic Compositions of Cometary Matter Returned by Stardust
Quote:
Hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen isotopic compositions are heterogeneous among comet 81P/Wild 2 particle fragments; however, extreme isotopic anomalies are rare, indicating that the comet is not a pristine aggregate of presolar materials. Nonterrestrial nitrogen and neon isotope ratios suggest that indigenous organic matter and highly volatile materials were successfully collected. Except for a single 17O-enriched circumstellar stardust grain, silicate and oxide minerals have oxygen isotopic compositions consistent with solar system origin. One refractory grain is 16O-enriched, like refractory inclusions in meteorites, suggesting that Wild 2 contains material formed at high temperature in the inner solar system and transported to the Kuiper belt before comet accretion.
Refractory and semi-volatile organics at the surface of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: Insights from the VIRTIS/Rosetta imaging spectrometer
Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko: Close-up on Dust Particle Fragments
Quote:
The sodium to iron elemental ratio is enriched with regard to abundances in CI carbonaceous chondrites by a factor from ˜1.5 to ˜15. No clear evidence for organic matter has been identified. The composition and morphology of the collected dust particles appear to be similar to that of interplanetary dust particles.

Last edited by Reality Check; 21st August 2017 at 07:38 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 07:17 PM   #211
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Question Sol88: Why are all main-belt asteroids not comets according to your comet delusions

Back to the subject of the thread:
Questions with deafening silence emphasizing the complete uselessness of the comets are rocks delusion.
  1. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from?
  2. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted composition of comets from their origins?
  3. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted density of comets?
  4. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is the measured density of comets?
  5. 18 August 2017 Sol88: State the physics that explains any density difference showing that the measurements are matched.
If you want main-belt comets to support your comet delusions then answer:
22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all main-belt asteroids not comets according to your comet delusions?

Last edited by Reality Check; 21st August 2017 at 07:22 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 07:24 PM   #212
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Question Sol88: Why are all asteroids with cometary obits not comets

And a blast from the past!
22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all asteroids with cometary obits not comets as in your comet delusions?

Electric comets still do not exist!
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets !

Last edited by Reality Check; 21st August 2017 at 07:32 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 09:42 PM   #213
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,951
Quote:
Cometary nuclei consist mostly of dust and water ice1. Previous observations have found nuclei to be low-density and highly porous bodies2–4, but have only moderately constrained the range of allowed densities because of the measurement uncertainties. Here we report the precise mass, bulk density, porosity and internal structure of the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko on the basis of its gravity field. The mass and gravity field are derived from measured spacecraft velocity perturbations at fly-by distances between 10 and 100 kilometres. The gravitational point mass is GM = 666.2 ± 0.2 cubic metres per second squared, giving a mass M = (9,982 ± 3) × 109 kilograms. Together with the current estimate of the volume of the nucleus5, the average bulk density of the nucleus is 533 ± 6 kilograms per cubic metre. The nucleus appears to be a low-density, highly porous (72–74 per cent) dusty body, similar to that of comet 9P/Tempel 12,3. The most likely composition mix has approximately four times more dust than ice by mass and two times more dust than ice by volume. We conclude that the interior of the nucleus is homogeneous and constant in density on a global scale without large voids. The high porosity seems to be an inherent property of the nucleus material.
A homogeneous nucleus for comet 67P/Churyumov– Gerasimenko from its gravity field

But

Quote:
ABSTRACT
We present a global geomorphological map of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (67P/C- G) using data acquired by the Rosetta Orbiter’s OSIRIS Narrow Angle Camera. The images used in our study were acquired between 2014 August and 2015 May, before 67P/C-G passed through perihelion. Imagery of the Southern hemisphere was included in our study, allowing us to compare the contrasting hemispheres of 67P/C-G in a single study. Our work also puts into greater context the morphologies studied in previous works, and also the morphologies observed on previously visited cometary nuclei. Relative to other nuclei, 67P/C-G appears most similar to 81P/Wild 2, with a topographically heterogeneous surface dominated by smooth-floored pits. Our mapping describes the landscapes of 67P/C-G when they were first observed by Rosetta, and our map can be used to detect changes in surface morphologies after its perihelion passage. Our mapping reveals strong latitudinal dependences for emplaced units and a highly heterogeneous surface. Layered bedrock units that represent the exposed nucleus of 67P/C-G are dominant at southern latitudes, while topographically smooth, dust covered regions dominate the Northern hemisphere. Equatorial latitudes are dominated by smooth terrain units that show evidence for flow structures. We observe no obvious differences between the comet’s two lobes, with the only longitudinal variations being the Imhotep and Hatmehit basins. These correlations suggest a strong seasonal forcing on the surface evolution of 67P/C- G, where materials are transported from the Southern hemisphere to Northern hemisphere basins over multiple orbital time-scales.
Geomorphology of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

Bedrock?? Like as if in bedrock?

You think they say what they mean and call it compressed dust with some ice!

Why would they call it bedrock, like in this context...
Quote:
The surface of 67P/C-G is generally broken into rough and smooth terrains (e.g. Auger et al. 2015; La Forgia et al. 2015; Giacomini et al. 2016; Pajola et al. 2016b). The rough terrain is predominantly exposed bedrock, while the smooth terrain repre- sents disaggregated, transported remnants of formerly consolidated bedrock (Sierks et al. 2015).
Further...

Quote:
3.1.1 Interpretation
The cliffs represent the exposed, underlying bedrock of the comet nucleus. Regions with high slopes mark locations subjected to sub- limation induced erosion and scarp retreat. Talus deposits at their base suggest collapse and back-wasting of the cliff face. The cliffs (primarily the low-sloping cliffs) are also most prominent at south- ern latitudes, which are the latitudes most illuminated during per- ihelion. This suggests that granular materials are removed from southern latitudes at perihelion with the underlying structures now exposed. Simultaneously, the topography is bevelled at these lattudes, giving rise to the somewhat lower sloping cliffs. The bedrock of the nucleus is thus more exposed at southern latitudes, while the Northern hemisphere retains its granular covering.

So what kinda of bedrock do you think they are talking about, reality check, Dancing David?

Bedrock; Geology. unbroken solid rock, overlaid in most places by soil or rock fragments.

Astronomy;. unbroken solid fluffy rock, overlaid in most places by soil fluffy dust or rock granular fragments.??
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 21st August 2017 at 10:00 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 11:40 PM   #214
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,963
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Bedrock?? Like as if in bedrock?
No, probably more like
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:27 AM   #215
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,951
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; Yesterday at 12:29 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:36 AM   #216
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,951
So what would happen to the MUPUS-PEN if it had hit bedrock, one has to wonder!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11957754
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; Yesterday at 12:42 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:45 AM   #217
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,951
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Nothing in this mainstream journal supports your delusions that comets are rocks, etc.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 469, Issue Suppl_2, 21 July 2017
You getting your reading material from...

Can we call comets rock yet RC?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; Yesterday at 01:05 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:52 AM   #218
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,951
Then we can move onto the REAL interesting stuff!

Quote:
Explosive jet erosion from exposed cliff faces also acts to break off parts of the weakened bedrock material, which then accumulate as talus deposits at the cliff bases (Groussin et al. 2015; Pajola et al. 2016b).
Jets, ay!

Quote:
6 SUMMARY Our geomorphologic mapping reveals a complex terrain of consolidated bedrock material overlain by sedimentary deposits. The northern half of the nucleus is covered in sedimentary materials, while the landscapes of the Southern hemisphere are relatively free of sediment, revealing the underlying bedrock of the nucleus. Putative flow deposits are located around the equatorial regions, suggesting that sediment transport processes and landscape evolution occur on 67P/C-G by insolation-driven processes.
Geomorphology of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
Samuel P. D. Birch,1‹ Y. Tang,2 A. G. Hayes,1,2 R. L. Kirk,3 D. Bodewits,4
H. Campins,5 Y. Fernandez,5 R. de Freitas Bart,2 N. W. Kutsop,2 H. Sierks,6
J. M. Soderblom,7 S. W. Squyres1,2 and J-B. Vincent6,8


insolation-driven processes?? it's not thermal though, it's the interplay between sunlit parts and shadowed parts...Electrostatic forces on grains near asteroids and comets Christine Hartzell1, and Dylan Carter1
1Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, 3178 Martin Hall, College Park, MD USA 20904
Quote:
Abstract. Dust on and near the surface of small planetary bodies (e.g. asteroids, the Moon, Mars’ moons) is subject to gravity, cohesion and electrostatic forces. Due to the very low gravity on small bodies, the behavior of small dust grains is driven by non-gravitational forces. Recent work by Scheeres et al. has shown that cohesion, specifically van der Waals force, is significant for grains on asteroids. In addition to van der Waals cohesion, dust grains also experience electrostatic forces, arising from their interaction with each other (through tribocharging) and the solar wind plasma (which produces both grain charging and an external electric field). Electrostatic forces influence both the interactions of grains on the surface of small bodies as well as the dynamics of grains in the plasma sheath above the surface. While tribocharging between identical dielectric grains remains poorly understood, we have recently expanded an existing charge transfer model to consider continuous size distributions of grains and are planning an experiment to test the charge predictions produced. Additionally, we will present predictions of the size of dust grains that are capable of detaching from the surface of small bodies.
and Observation of charged nanograins at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko J. L. Burch1, T. I. Gombosi2, G. Clark3, P. Mokashi1, and R. Goldstein1
Quote:
Abstract Soon after the Rosetta Orbiter rendezvoused with comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at a solar distance of ~3.5 AU and began to fly in triangular-shaped trajectories around it, the Ion and Electron Sensor detected negative particles at energies from about 100 eV/q to over 18 keV/q. The lower energy particles came from roughly the direction of the comet; the higher-energy particles came from approximately the solar direction. These particles are interpreted as clusters of molecules, most likely water, which we refer to as nanograins because their inferred diameters are less than 100 nm. Acceleration of the grains away from the comet is through gas drag by the expanding cometary atmosphere, while acceleration back to the vicinity of the comet is caused partly by solar radiation pressure but mainly by the solar wind electric field. These observations represent the first measurements of energetic charged submicron-sized dust or ice grains (nanograins) in a cometary environment. .
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; Yesterday at 01:04 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:40 AM   #219
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,963
Is there actually a point to this drivel?
Still no evidence whatsoever for the electric comet hypothesis.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:35 PM   #220
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Thumbs down Sol88: Deluded comments about papers on ice and dust comets

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
A homogeneous nucleus for comet 67P/Churyumov– Gerasimenko from its gravity field..
23 August 2017 Sol88: Deluded comments about papers on ice and dust comets do not support his comet delusions.
Astronomers using words from geology to describe features of comets made of ices and dust does not support his comet delusions.

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 02:07 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:51 PM   #221
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Thumbs down Sol88: Comets are not made of rock so the question is ignorant and deluded

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So what would happen to the MUPUS-PEN if it had hit bedrock, one has to wonder!
One has to wonder about 8 years of ignorance and delusion on comets.
23 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are not made of rock so the question is ignorant and deluded.

In the real world, MUPUS-PEN hit a layer matching sintered, high porosity ices and dust.

Nice thing about having a permanent record of ignorance, delusions and lies that it is easy to address them when they are vomited up again.
216 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 13 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
15 August 2017 Sol88: A lie of "looks like the bulk density has got you mob stumped!" when it is you has the delusion that comets are rocks and their bulk density is measured to be less than that of water.
15 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant delusion about the MUPUS-PEN calibration in the lab being what MUPUS detected on 67P.
15 August 2017 Sol88: Repeating his delusions that comets are rocks, etc.
15 August 2017 Sol88: The idiocy that a "sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65%" = bulk density.

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 02:10 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:58 PM   #222
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Thumbs down Sol88: Does not know he cited a journal issue on comets made of ices and dust

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You getting your reading material from...
That would be you!
23 August 2017 Sol88: Does not know he cited a journal issue on comets made of ices and dust, specifically 67P!
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:07 PM   #223
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Thumbs down Sol88: Repeated idiocy of citing papers on comets made of ices and dust

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Jets, ay! ...
23 August 2017 Sol88: Repeated idiocy of citing papers on comets made of ices and dust in a thread on his comet are rocks, etc. delusions.

23 August 2017 Sol88: Ignorant fantasies and lies about the papers he cites on ices and dust comets.
Geomorphology of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko is about the surface ices and dust geology of 67P.
Electrostatic forces on grains near asteroids and comets is about electrostatic forces on dust grains near asteroids and comets.
Observation of charged nanograins at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is about charged nanograins far from the surface of 67P.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:20 PM   #224
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Question Sol88: Why does comet dust not match planetary rock or asteroid composition

Back to the subject of the thread:
Questions with deafening silence emphasizing the complete uselessness of the comets are rocks delusion.
  1. 14 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are rocks so where did that rock come from?
  2. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted composition of comets from their origins?
  3. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is your predicted density of comets?
  4. 18 August 2017 Sol88: What is the measured density of comets?
  5. 18 August 2017 Sol88: State the physics that explains any density difference showing that the measurements are matched.
  6. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all main-belt asteroids not comets according to your comet delusions?
  7. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Why are all asteroids with cometary obits not comets as in your comet delusions?

Electric comets still do not exist!
23 August 2017 Sol88: Why does comet dust not match planetary rock or asteroid composition?
If it does then cite the scientific literature stating this.
One of your comet delusions (but you are not brave enough to state this here) is that comets were blasted from planets such as the Earth so:
23 August 2017 Sol88: What is your evidence that comets were blasted from planets such as the Earth?

Your 8 years of ignorance about comets may include electric comets ! So guess who wrote:
Quote:
In the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® comets are not primordial. They are debris produced during violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history — a phase that persisted into early human history.
(on his totally deluded blog so no link)

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 02:24 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:31 PM   #225
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,951
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
23 August 2017 Sol88: Deluded comments about papers on ice and dust comets do not support his comet delusions.
Astronomers using words from geology to describe features of comets made of ices and dust does not support his comet delusions.


So just words?

Quote:
3.3.1 Interpretation
The process(es) by which the bouldered plains form are less clear than the morphologically similar talus deposits as they have no
topographic signature or nearby source (i.e. cliffs). They may form via in situ thermal weathering of a previously consolidated bedrock. Large thermal gradients and sublimation events over di- urnal cycles can further weaken an already pre-fractured bedrock. Collapse of bedrock materials that outcrop from beneath plains terrains would lead to large deposits of boulders appearing to over- lay smooth/cauliflower plains materials. Alternatively, they may be remnant talus deposits, now marking locations where cliffs used to be located, which subsequently back-wasted to now distant locations.
Word!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; Yesterday at 03:41 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:13 PM   #226
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Thumbs down Sol88: Inane obsession with the word bedrock

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So just words?
Yet another obvious attempt to derail from 8 years of the ignorant and deluded idea that comets are rocks, etc.
23 August 2017 Sol88: Inane obsession with the word bedrock in a paper about comets made of ices and dust.

This is a persistent obsession over the last few years with words and phrases used to describe ices and dust comets, e.g. "rock-like".

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 06:17 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:33 PM   #227
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Yet more Sol88 posts with ignorance, delusions or lies so the list needs an update.
232 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 17 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
  1. 18 August 2017 Sol88: Smearing astronomers with his comets are rocks, etc. delusions.
  2. 18 August 2017 Sol88: Insults astronomers by linking them with his ignorant comet delusions.
  3. 18 August 2017 Sol88: A display of ignorance of what he has read to derail from his comet delusions so will not be answered.
  4. 18 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about a Rosetta blog that is not about nor supports his comet delusions.
  5. 18 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about a paper that is not about nor supports his comet delusions.
  6. 18 August 2017 Sol88: A link to his ignorant, deluded and lying Thunderbolts cult.
  7. 18 August 2017 Sol88: Wal Thornhill and David Talbott published lies about "correct" predictions for Depp Impact in a 2007 book.
  8. 21 August 2017 Sol88: I did not answer an ignorant and deluded derail [but I am documenting them!].
  9. 21 August 2017 Sol88: Mentions "nucleus bulk density" that shows how completely insane the comets are rock, etc. delusions are!
  10. 21 August 2017 Sol88: "Interesting" ignorance because main-belt comets show that his comets are rocks delusions are just that!
  11. 21 August 2017 Sol88: "Curiouser" ignorance because main-belt comets show that his comets are rocks delusions are just that!
  12. 21 August 2017 Sol88: Inane lying about real science that is not his comets are rocks, etc. delusions.
  13. 21 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about Jewitt et. al.
  14. 22 August 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing papers on comets made of ices and dust in a thread about his comet delusions, e.g. they are rocks.
  15. 22 August 2017 Sol88: Repeats the idiocy of citing papers on comets made of ices and dust in a thread about his comet delusions, e.g. they are rocks.
  16. 22 August 2017 Sol88: A double delusion that comets are only dust and that dust is "very similar to Carbonaceous chondritic meteorites".
  17. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Deluded comments about papers on ice and dust comets do not support his comet delusions.
  18. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Comets are not made of rock so the question is ignorant and deluded.
  19. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Does not know he cited a journal issue on comets made of ices and dust, specifically 67P!
  20. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Repeated idiocy of citing papers on comets made of ices and dust in a thread on his comet are rocks, etc. delusions.
  21. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Ignorant fantasies and lies about the papers he cites on ices and dust comets.
  22. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Inane obsession with the word bedrock in a paper about comets made of ices and dust.

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 06:35 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:44 PM   #228
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,963
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So what would happen to the MUPUS-PEN if it had hit bedrock, one has to wonder!
No, one has to test like Marczewski et al. did, not wonder.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:42 AM   #229
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,951
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
No, one has to test like Marczewski et al. did, not wonder.
Still wondering

MUPUS-PEN is what we are after. Would you know of any papers where they have tested into rock?

Wondering if they tested it into "rock" hard ice?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; Today at 03:28 AM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:55 AM   #230
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,963
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Still wondering

MUPUS-PEN is what we are after. Would you know of any papers where they have tested into rock?

Wondering if they tested it into "rock" hard ice?
Maybe you should search then for the correct terms in e.g. ADS
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:44 PM   #231
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Sol88: Idiotic question - comets are not made of rock=MUPUS was not tested into rock

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Would you know of any papers where they have tested into rock?
24 August 2017 Sol88: An idiotic question - comets are not made of rock so MUPUS-PEN was not tested into rock!
Idiotic because we already have
15 August 2017 Sol88: Two lies about a Spohn & Ball paper ("A sintered near-surface microporous dust-ice layer with a porosity of 30 to 65% is consistent with the data")
15 August 2017 Sol88: An ignorant delusion about the MUPUS-PEN calibration in the lab being what MUPUS detected on 67P. where there are calibration materials that did not include rock because anyone who can read and do basic arithmetic (e.g. scientists) are not deluded enough to think that comets are rock.
The evidence when MUPUS-PEN was designed, built and tested before 2004 was that comets were relatively soft nuclei of loosely packed ices and dust. The density of 67P was lower than what we now measure it (from memory ~0.4 g/cc) because we did not know about its shape and overestimated its volume.

Last edited by Reality Check; Today at 01:53 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:08 PM   #232
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,951
You have a problem RC!

A homogeneous nucleus for comet 67P/Churyumov– Gerasimenko from its gravity field

Quote:
The resulting weighted average volume and bulk density are thus (18.7 ± 0.2) km3 and (533 ± 6) kg m−3, respectively. This bulk density value, about half the density of water ice, implies that the nucleus is highly porous.
For reasonable dust material densities one can relate the porosity of the nucleus to the dust-to-ice ratio. The cometary dust particles may be extremely porous and fluffy objects, but the silicate material densities are likely to be around 3,000 kg m−3, as determined by the Stardust mission15. Organic carbonaceous particles may have material densities of 2,200 kg m−3. Assuming a ratio of 1:1 for both aggregates would account for an average global material density of 2,600 kg m−3, in accordance with earlier estimates16.
Seems the like the nucleus should be like pumice or scoria? But what we see a feel (OSIRIS, MUPUS-PEN and STARDUST) is rock, bedrock, with high temperature minerals. ;0

So your problem is where's all the 'nothing' between fluffy dust?

Quote:
The 70% and 75% porosity curves in Fig. 1a require a dust volume of 14% and 16.5%, respectively, for the average dust material density of 2,600 kg m−3. These porosities yield average dust-to-ice mass ratios of 2.4 and 5.3, respectively, in Fig. 1b. The dust-to-ice mass ratio is 1.9 to 14 for the full range of credible dust material densities between 2,200 kg m−3 and 3,000 kg m−3. This means that a nucleus with 70% to 75% porosity can have up to fourteen times more dust than ice by mass, but can also have up to twice as much ice than dust by volume.
The extremes are the 50% and 80% porosity curves. These porosity cases do not result in reasonable dust-to-ice mass ratios. The dust at the
average dust material density would fill the remaining volume of 20% completely for the 80% porosity case. This would represent a highly porous dusty body with no ice. The 50% porosity case represents a porous icy body with an ice content 18 times higher than for dust by volume. Both cases are considered unrealistic.
The GIADA instrument on Rosetta reports an inferred dust-to-ice mass ratio18 of 4 ± 1. Applying this value to the direct surface compo- sition would constrain the surface porosity to 72% to 74%, well within the reasonable range of dust material densities.
If the dust-to-ice mass ratio of 4 is correct18, then the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko appears to be a very porous, very dusty body with a dust content by volume about two times larger than the ice content by volume.


Even if it was RC's beloved ice the nucleus should be denser?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:13 PM   #233
Sol88
Graduate Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,951
And then you run into the old chestnut of 'how is the dust ending up in the coma?'


Quote:
DiscussionFluffyparticlesareporousaggregatesofsubm icrongrainspro-ducedfromthenucleus.Theyrangeinsizefrom0.2to2.5mma ndtheirequivalentbulkdensityisupto1kgm−3.Theyarech arged,fragmented,anddeceleratedbythespacecraftnega tivepotentialandenterGIADAinshowersoffragmentsatsp eeds<1ms−1(Fulleetal.,2015a).Wesuggestthattheseuff yparticlesresemblethe67PparticlescollectedbyCOSIMA (Schulzetal.2015)havingatensilestrengthsuchthatthe ycouldbreakapartonimpact.Thisbehaviorisconsistentw ithuffyparti-clefragmentation(Fulleetal.2015a).
GIADA: shining a light on the monitoring of the comet dust production from the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov Gerasimenko

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. Awayoutof this impasse requires revision of the most common model assumption employed by the cometary community.
. Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:28 PM   #234
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Thumbs down Sol88: The problem is his ignorant delusions about a paper

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
You have a problem RC! ...
24 August 2017 Sol88: The problem is his ignorant delusions about a paper (bulk = not surface!).
A homogeneous nucleus for comet 67P/Churyumov– Gerasimenko from its gravity field is not about the first few meters of the surface that MUPUS-PEN sampled or the rest of his deluded highlights of the paper and his usual insane comments.

24 August 2017 Sol88: Idiotic mention of a paper on ices and dust comets in his comet delusions thread.

Last edited by Reality Check; Today at 03:32 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:36 PM   #235
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,995
Thumbs down Sol88: A lie about an ""old chestnut" when we have mechanisms to put dust in the coma

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And then you run into the old chestnut of 'how is the dust ending up in the coma?'
24 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about an ""old chestnut" when we have mechanisms to put dust in the coma which he has cited .

24 August 2017 Sol88: Second idiotic mention of a paper on ices and dust comets in his comet delusions thread.

24 August 2017 Sol88: Third idiotic mention of a paper on ices and dust comets in his comet delusions thread.

24 August 2017 Sol88: Third time today not citing the papers he mentions and quotes.

GIADA: shining a light on the monitoring of the comet dust production from the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov Gerasimenko

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Read 254 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 23 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!) for his previous delusions and lies about dust activity.

Last edited by Reality Check; Today at 03:59 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:40 PM   #236
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,963
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And then you run into the old chestnut of 'how is the dust ending up in the coma?'
So if everything mainstream is not, then please enlighten us what is.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.