Merged: The Electric Comet Theory Part III/SAFIRE

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Well there seems to be strong evidence of those same fields accelerating electrons to high energies...

18 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing a suprathermal electron paper that is not about his comet delusions.

18 September 2017 Sol88: Lies about the paper he cites which is not about his comet delusions.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

The 'dirtysnowball' is dead ...

18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead" followed by the idiocy of his ignorant delusions about comets are a model!
What he quotes is, does not cite and lies about is
Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

Quote:

11 CONCLUSIONS The classical model of comets as dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950) has focused most models of comets on ices. The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear. With 67P’s dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside.

This is that the classical model of comets as dirty ice balls meant that astronomers concentrated on the ice part of comets made of ice and dust. The example of 67P with a high ratio of dust makes models with high ratios of dust more important - Duh !

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

but it's the only model available to the mainstream!

18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie that Whipple's 1950 model is the only mainstream model.
Of the last 70 years models of comet with various amounts of ices and dust have been used. That is what the paper he quoted is taking about !
18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead" followed by the idiocy of his ignorant delusions about comets are a model!

18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie that Whipple's 1950 model is wrong - it is applicable to comets that are more ice than dust as in the 1950's observsions.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

There's the mainstreams BIGGEST Problem!

18 September 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of not knowing the meaning of surface and bulk is his problem, not the mainstreams.
What he quotes is

Quote:

The larger the dust-to-water ratio, the larger the porosity required to fit the observed nucleus bulk density. The RSI (Pätzold et al. 2016) and the CONSERT (Kofman et al. 2015) experiments exclude macro-porosity at scales above 100 m. CONSERT experiment provides a micro-porosity between 75 per cent and 85 per cent (Kofman et al. 2015). Hapke models provide a surface porosity of 87 per cent (Fornasier et al. 2015)

This is

1. No voids (macro-porosity) bigger than 100 m
2. A bulk porosity "between 75 per cent and 85 per cent".
   Properties of the 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko interior revealed by CONSERT radar
3. A surface porosity of 87 per cent.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

All stated as FACT!

18 September 2017 Sol88: Unsourced quotes that he lies about.

For others:
The mainstream has centuries of observations of comets especially in the last 100 years and in the just completed Rosetta mission to Comet 67P. These have shown that comets are made of ices and dust and originate in the outer solar system (1000's of AU away for long period comets). The only way that they could have formed is along with the rest of the Solar System. This is a body of evidence that makes the origin of comets not FACT but enormously supported.

[Matthew Cline]

Does the current mainstream model have a name? Perhaps that's the problem: the old model has a pithy name while the current model is nameless.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Matthew Cline

Does the current mainstream model have a name? Perhaps that's the problem: the old model has a pithy name while the current model is nameless.

The name has not changed - it is still the "dirty snowball" or Whipple's model.
Some comets are better described as "icy dirtballs".
Some comets are better described as "deep fried ice cream".

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The name has not changed - it is still the "dirty snowball" or Whipple's model.
Some comets are better described as "icy dirtballs".
Some comets are better described as "deep fried ice cream".

Tusenfem says no!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The 'dirtysnowball' is dead and it's time for a new model Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view

Quote:

Tusenfem
Whipple never saw a comet up close in the 50s of the last century.
Ofcourse, after the first picture of a cometary nucleus, it became clear that Whipple's model needed to be modified, and with every successful mission to comets we learn more, which is exactly what Fulle et al. are writing.

It is just YOU who is keeping on insisting that the mainstream model is Whipples dirty snowball. Yes, it keeps on being used in popular literature, it is hard to get rid of terms that have taken foothold but don't describe reality, just think about the term "big bang" which was used to ridicule the theory.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Matthew Cline

Does the current mainstream model have a name? Perhaps that's the problem: the old model has a pithy name while the current model is nameless.

Actually, we call t he model "comet".

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Tusenfem says no!

19 September 2017 Sol88: A lie by quoting tusenfem debunking another lie.
That was Sol88's lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead" and the implication his ignorant delusions could replace evidence-based science.

There is no such thing as 'dirtysnowball'.
Whipple's model is described as the "dirty snowball" model. That is the widely used (if out of date) name for the model. That is what I wrote: it is still the "dirty snowball" (note the quotes) or Whipple's model.
The comet model is alive and well today.
The comet model has been modified to be wider in scope from comets composed mostly of ices + some dust to comets composed mostly of dust + some ices because we have evidence from that the dust component of at least 2 comets (Tempel 1 and 67P) is higher then was thought 70 years ago.

ETA: This looks like his previous idiocy that changing the description ("dirty snowball"/"icy dirt ball"/"deep fried ice cream") of a model makes it invalid. It does not matter what we call the mainstream model of comets. The model is based on real world, empirical evidence that comets are made of ices and dust, originate from the outer Solar System, are made of materials from the early Solar System, includes interstellar dust grains, etc.

[Reality Check]

254 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 23August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

1. 13 September 2017 Sol88: A lie about wanting a link when he knows the link.
   
2. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A repeated lie of dust being ejected electrically as in his comet delusions [by electrical discharges between the comet and Sun].
   
3. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing an electrostatic dust acceleration paper about mainstream comets made of ices and dust
   
4. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing an electrostatic charging paper about mainstream comets made of ices and dust
   
5. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Lies again about there being no links.
   
6. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Usual mindless parroting of the ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult that have been already addressed.
   
7. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie about his comet delusions which do not include jets happen in the "boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".
   
8. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because he knows that the actual location of jets is part of what makes his comet ideas into delusions.
   
9. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because the ignorant and deluded page he cites is not about comet jets.
   
10. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Maybe a lie because he does not cite any observations of jets "seen to occur in the boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".
    
11. 18 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing a suprathermal electron paper that is not about his comet delusions.
    
12. 18 September 2017 Sol88: Lies about the paper he cites which is not about his comet delusions.
    
13. 18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead" followed by the idiocy of his ignorant delusions about comets are a model!
    
14. 18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie that Whipple's 1950 model is the only mainstream mode and wrong.
    
15. 18 September 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of not knowing the meaning of surface and bulk is his problem, not the mainstreams.
    
16. 18 September 2017 Sol88: Unsourced quotes that he lies about (it is evidence, not fact).
    
17. 19 September 2017 Sol88: A lie by quoting tusenfem debunking another lie.

Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88)
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

19 September 2017 Sol88: A lie by quoting tusenfem debunking another lie.
That was Sol88's lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead" and the implication his ignorant delusions could replace evidence-based science.

There is no such thing as 'dirtysnowball'.
Whipple's model is described as the "dirty snowball" model. That is the widely used (if out of date) name for the model. That is what I wrote: it is still the "dirty snowball" (note the quotes) or Whipple's model.
The comet model is alive and well today.
The comet model has been modified to be wider in scope from comets composed mostly of ices + some dust to comets composed mostly of dust + some ices because we have evidence from that the dust component of at least 2 comets (Tempel 1 and 67P) is higher then was thought 70 years ago.

ETA: This looks like his previous idiocy that changing the description ("dirty snowball"/"icy dirt ball"/"deep fried ice cream") of a model makes it invalid. It does not matter what we call the mainstream model of comets. The model is based on real world, empirical evidence that comets are made of ices and dust, originate from the outer Solar System, are made of materials from the early Solar System, includes interstellar dust grains, etc.

Are they? Leftovers from the formation of the solar system?

And the the model looks like it's now composed mostly of rock with some dust and negligible 'ice'

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

And the the model looks like it's now composed mostly of rock with some dust and negligible 'ice'

19 September 2017 Sol88: Lies about the mainstream model looking like mostly rock with some dust and negligible 'ice'.
This is a comet. Comet 67P is at least 1/6th ices and the rest is dust with no rock at all found.

ETA: For others (and in no way supporting the idiotic delusion that comets are rocks), there is evidence that comets contain small amounts of "pebbles" or "stones" and even "boulders" - meteor showers

Quote:

A meteor shower is the result of an interaction between a planet, such as Earth, and streams of debris from a comet. Comets can produce debris by water vapor drag, as demonstrated by Fred Whipple in 1951,[19] and by breakup. Whipple envisioned comets as "dirty snowballs," made up of rock embedded in ice, orbiting the Sun. The "ice" may be water, methane, ammonia, or other volatiles, alone or in combination. The "rock" may vary in size from that of a dust mote to that of a small boulder. Dust mote sized solids are orders of magnitude more common than those the size of sand grains, which, in turn, are similarly more common than those the size of pebbles, and so on. When the ice warms and sublimates, the vapor can drag along dust, sand, and pebbles.

Each time a comet swings by the Sun in its orbit, some of its ice vaporizes and a certain amount of meteoroids will be shed. The meteoroids spread out along the entire orbit of the comet to form a meteoroid stream, also known as a "dust trail" (as opposed to a comet's "dust tail" caused by the very small particles that are quickly blown away by solar radiation pressure).

Recently, Peter Jenniskens[17] has argued that most of our short-period meteor showers are not from the normal water vapor drag of active comets, but the product of infrequent disintegrations, when large chunks break off a mostly dormant comet. Examples are the Quadrantids and Geminids, which originated from a breakup of asteroid-looking objects, 2003 EH1 and 3200 Phaethon, respectively, about 500 and 1000 years ago. The fragments tend to fall apart quickly into dust, sand, and pebbles, and spread out along the orbit of the comet to form a dense meteoroid stream, which subsequently evolves into Earth's path.

[jonesdave116]

Hey Ho. Sol's off again. Totally forgetting to mention that the idiot Thornhill came up with an impossible way of creating water at a comet. Or anywhere else. Do the maths. Look at the energetics involved. Lol. Only an idiot could have come up with such rubbish, eh?
Dear me; why do you idiots follow this burke? An explanation would be good. Given that he is essentially brain dead re any ACTUAL science. Strewth. Please explain.
If it is not already clear; Thornhill & Talbott are cranks. With zero scientific knowledge. They are nutjobs. Anybody that wants to prove otherwise, please join in. Lol.

[Reality Check]

According to the electric comet delusion, main belt comets should not exist but now we have another!
Hubble Spots Unique Object in the Main Asteroid Belt

Quote:

The latest discovery was made by a team of international astronomers led by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research. Using Hubble, they spotted a unique object in the Main Asteroid Belt – a binary asteroid known as 288P – which also behaves like a comet. According to the team’s study, this binary asteroid experiences sublimation as it nears the Sun, which causes comet-like tails to form.
...
As Jessica Agarwal explained in a Hubble press statement, this makes 288P the first known binary asteroid that is also classified as a main-belt comet. “We detected strong indications of the sublimation of water ice due to the increased solar heating – similar to how the tail of a comet is created,” she said. In addition to being a pleasant surprise, these findings are also highly significant when it comes to the study of the Solar System.

[Captain_Swoop]

I go away for 6 months and it's like I never left.
Groundhog thread.

[Sol88]

Tap Tap Tap

Hubble Spots Farthest-Ever Incoming Active Comet

Dirtysnowball? Falsified AGAIN!

DUSTY PLASMA EFFECTS IN COMETS: EXPECTATIONS FOR ROSETTA
D.A. Mendis1 and M. Horányi2

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Tap Tap Tap...

2 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the mainstream model is falsified !
This another rather pathetic derail from the topic of the thread - his delusions about comets.

Hubble Spots Farthest-Ever Incoming Active Comet
This is about a new Comet C/2017 K2. Easily explained by the comet being new to the inner system and so having more volatile materials. That is what a "dirty snowball" does!

2 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a comet originating from the Oort cloud, not the Earth as in his delusions about comets.

2 October 2017 Sol88: A delusion that Comet C/2017 K2 is Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (the target of Rosetta and the subject of the paper he does not cite!)

[Reality Check]

254 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 23 August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

1. 13 September 2017 Sol88: A lie about wanting a link when he knows the link.
   
2. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A repeated lie of dust being ejected electrically as in his comet delusions [by electrical discharges between the comet and Sun].
   
3. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing an electrostatic dust acceleration paper about mainstream comets made of ices and dust
   
4. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing an electrostatic charging paper about mainstream comets made of ices and dust
   
5. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Lies again about there being no links.
   
6. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Usual mindless parroting of the ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts cult that have been already addressed.
   
7. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie about his comet delusions which do not include jets happen in the "boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".
   
8. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because he knows that the actual location of jets is part of what makes his comet ideas into delusions.
   
9. 14 September 2017 Sol88: A lie because the ignorant and deluded page he cites is not about comet jets.
   
10. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Maybe a lie because he does not cite any observations of jets "seen to occur in the boundary between lit areas and shadowed areas".
    
11. 18 September 2017 Sol88: Idiocy of citing a suprathermal electron paper that is not about his comet delusions.
    
12. 18 September 2017 Sol88: Lies about the paper he cites which is not about his comet delusions.
    
13. 18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie of "The 'dirtysnowball' is dead" followed by the idiocy of his ignorant delusions about comets are a model!
    
14. 18 September 2017 Sol88: A lie that Whipple's 1950 model is the only mainstream mode and wrong.
    
15. 18 September 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of not knowing the meaning of surface and bulk is his problem, not the mainstreams.
    
16. 18 September 2017 Sol88: Unsourced quotes that he lies about (it is evidence, not fact).
    
17. 19 September 2017 Sol88: A lie by quoting tusenfem debunking another lie.
    
18. 19 September 2017 Sol88: Lies about the mainstream model looking like mostly rock with some dust and negligible 'ice'.
    
19. 2 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the mainstream model is falsified !
    
20. 2 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a comet originating from the Oort cloud, not the Earth as in his delusions about comets.
    
21. 2 October 2017 Sol88: A delusion that Comet C/2017 K2 is Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (the target of Rosetta and the subject of the paper he does not cite!)

Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88)
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

2 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the mainstream model is falsified !
This another rather pathetic derail from the topic of the thread - his delusions about comets.

Hubble Spots Farthest-Ever Incoming Active Comet
This is about a new Comet C/2017 K2. Easily explained by the comet being new to the inner system and so having more volatile materials. That is what a "dirty snowball" does!

2 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a comet originating from the Oort cloud, not the Earth as in his delusions about comets.

2 October 2017 Sol88: A delusion that Comet C/2017 K2 is Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (the target of Rosetta and the subject of the paper he does not cite!)

How's the dust being released from the Comet K2, reality Check?

Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Yu. V. Skorov1, L. Rezac1, P. Hartogh1 and H. U. Keller2

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.

but comet K2 can at

Quote:

Prediscovery observations from 2013 show
that the comet was also active at 23.7 au heliocentric distance.

10.3847/2041-8213/aa88b4

WoW, ay!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

I go away for 6 months and it's like I never left.
Groundhog thread.

Plentys gone on, 'ol mate!

With every new paper the "dirtysnowball" model HAS to be revised till it's not the dirtysnowball model any longer.

The mainstream model of comets is like blob of jelly

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

How's the dust being released from the Comet K2, reality Check?

3 October 2017 Sol88: A stupid question derailing from his delusions about comets.
It is stupid because he has had 8 years to learn about the working mainstream model of comets !

3 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.

3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Yu. V. Skorov, L. Rezac1, P. Hartogh1 and H. U. Keller does not rule out every possible mechanism for forming a dust coma for every possible comet.

Quote:

Methods. We used a 1D thermophysical numerical model that provides a realistic description of cohesion forces among dust aggregates. Several conditions of solar illumination on the nucleus are investigated for the H2O, CO, and CO2 ices below the dust layer. We examine a wide range of dust grain sizes.

Conclusions.[b]In the framework of the presented model[/color], 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.

Emphasized the parts he lied about. The activity of Comet K2 is explained by CO2, CO, O2, and N2 ices at the surface. That is not the model in this paper.

3 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS) paper about ice and dust comets.

3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS) paper about ice and dust comets.
The paper he cites gives explains the coma formation at its distance !
A Comet Active Beyond the Crystallization Zone

Quote:

Prediscovery observations from 2013 show that the comet was also active at 23.7 au heliocentric distance. While neither water ice sublimation nor exothermic crystallization can account for the observed distant activity, the measured properties are consistent with activity driven by sublimating supervolatile ices such as CO2, CO, O2, and N2. Survival of supervolatiles at the nucleus surface is likely a result of the comet's recent arrival from the frigid Oort Cloud.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Plentys gone on, 'ol mate!

3 October 2017 Sol88: The only "plenty" that is going on is more posts full of ignorance, delusions and lies
275 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 2 October 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

3 October 2017 Sol88: The persistent lie of a "dirtysnowball" model existing.
It is the comet model or Whipple's model or Whipple's "dirty snowball" term can be used.

It is comet nuclei that are popularly described as a "dirty snowballs", "icy dirtballs" or like "deep fried ice cream". Even as a description "dirtysnowball" is a lie.

3 October 2017 Sol88:The insanity that scientific models cannot change when new data is collected.
That is not surprising when he is a follower of the almost religious Thunderbolts cult where there is only dogma based on 60 year old delusions.

[Sol88]

@ Reality Check,

That's great mate, as long as your comfortable with that!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

That's great mate, as long as your comfortable with that!

I am comfortable with knowing about the real world of science and comets.
I am also comfortable with documenting 8 years and continuing of ignorance, delusions and lies for the world to read forever.
275 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 2 October 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

[Sol88]

Oh I see, K2 is a "special" comet.

So if "super volatiles" can not remove dust at 1.3 au how the hell is it removing dust at 23.7au?

even if the ice is on the surface exposed to the full heat of the Sun.


Just another "oddball" comet then, ay?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Oh I see, K2 is a "special" comet.

8 years of ignorance, delusions and lies and the rest of the post makes that into a lie even with the rolleyes.
3 October 2017 Sol88: A lie about K2 being a "special" comet.
K2 is one of the billons of objects that are possible comets in the Oort cloud. They have been there for billions of years. When they are perturbed into the inner system they will have very volatile materials ("supervolatiles") on their surface. Thus K2 is just a new comet.

3 October 2017 Sol88: Repeats a lie of "supervolatiles" can not remove dust at 1.3 au.
3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Emphasized the parts he lied about. The activity of Comet K2 is explained by CO2, CO, O2, and N2 ices at the surface. That is not the model in this paper.

For others:
What is interesting about K2 is that we have observed sublimating ices forming the coma at such a large distance. That means that a major source of sublimation closer to the Sun (water ice) cannot be creating the coma.
A good description at Bad Astronomy: Astronomers spot the most distant active inbound comet ever - 2.5 *billion* km away!

Quote:

At those distances, water is far too cold to sublimate. Sometimes, in distant comets when they are still cold, water ice changes structure from an amorphous composition to more familiar ice crystals, and this can release heat and cause some gas to escape. However, at that distance, K2 was still too cold to do even that.

So, some other substance must be behind the activity. It’s not certain what it might be, but the likely suspects are frozen oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or carbon monoxide. All of those sublimate at colder temperatures than water.

3 October 2017 Sol88: The delusion that every comet is the same, e.g. K2 and 67P !
Comets have different orbits. C/2017 K2 has a hyperbolic orbit.
Comets have visited the inner system a different number of times. The hyperbolic orbit of K2 tells us that this is the comet's first and very likely only visit to the inner system. After perihelion around 2022, K2 will head out of the Solar System never to be seen again.
Comets have different compositions. K2 has never visited the inner system and so has a surface covered with sublimating supervolatile ices such as CO2, CO, O2, and N2.

275 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 2 October 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

[Reality Check]

The measured origin of real comets reminds ne that there are unanswered questions about the topic of the thread - the deluded electric comet dogma.

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?
8. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Why does comet dust not match planetary rock or asteroid composition?
9. 23 August 2017 Sol88: What is your evidence that comets were blasted from planets such as the Earth?
10. 28 August 2017 Sol88: What is your prediction for the "water produced per surface area of nucleus" on Hartley 2?

No honesty yet:
4 September 2017 Sol88: Are you not honest enough to acknowledge the Thunderbolts comet origins?

Delusions about comet jets are being regurgitated so:
14 September 2017 Sol88: Cite the observations from comet jets of narrow band x-rays bursts that electrical discharges emit.

3 October 2017 Sol88: Give the electric comet calculation of the distance(s) that comet coma form.

The idiocy of comets being rocks with the impossibility of electric discharge machining making a coma gives an expectation that all comets have to form coma at about the same distance. But here we have a comet forming a coma about over 10 times further from the Sun than another comet!

Electric comets still do not exist!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

8 years of ignorance, delusions and lies and the rest of the post makes that into a lie even with the rolleyes.
3 October 2017 Sol88: A lie about K2 being a "special" comet.
K2 is one of the billons of objects that are possible comets in the Oort cloud. They have been there for billions of years. When they are perturbed into the inner system they will have very volatile materials ("supervolatiles") on their surface. Thus K2 is just a new comet.

3 October 2017 Sol88: Repeats a lie of "supervolatiles" can not remove dust at 1.3 au.
3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.



For others:
What is interesting about K2 is that we have observed sublimating ices forming the coma at such a large distance. That means that a major source of sublimation closer to the Sun (water ice) cannot be creating the coma.
A good description at Bad Astronomy: Astronomers spot the most distant active inbound comet ever - 2.5 *billion* km away!



3 October 2017 Sol88: The delusion that every comet is the same, e.g. K2 and 67P !
Comets have different orbits. C/2017 K2 has a hyperbolic orbit.
Comets have visited the inner system a different number of times. The hyperbolic orbit of K2 tells us that this is the comet's first and very likely only visit to the inner system. After perihelion around 2022, K2 will head out of the Solar System never to be seen again.
Comets have different compositions. K2 has never visited the inner system and so has a surface covered with sublimating supervolatile ices such as CO2, CO, O2, and N2.

275 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 2 October 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

Sublimating super volatiles can NOT remove dust at any distance from the Sun!

And you've got it happening at 23.7au

But it MUST fit the dirty snowball model or.....

Plenty of evidence that the dirtysnowball model has been falsified!

A new model is required as stated by Skorov

There is no viable mechanism for the removal of dust by gas sumblimating on or near the surface.. BUT WE SEE 'jets" of dust, how Reality Check?

[tusenfem]

The dirty snowball is the 1950s model, sorry Sol, but research means that things develop. If they would not, you would be posting your junk on a clay tablet using cuniform.

But of course mainstream physics is not allowed to develop any starting models, they have to immediately reject their ideas and embrace the so called "electric universe" nonsense.

Skorov is the only one at the moment who does not believe in gas drag, and whether his ideas bear any merit will have to be seen. At presentations in Riga during the EPSC it was found that the dust and gas move together, and modeling of outgassing on 67P and then adding dust could very well explain the observations that were made. So it can be quite possible that Skorov is, dare I say it, wrong.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Sublimating super volatiles can NOT remove dust at any distance from the Sun!

And you've got it happening at 23.7au

But it MUST fit the dirty snowball model or.....

Plenty of evidence that the dirtysnowball model has been falsified!

A new model is required as stated by Skorov

There is no viable mechanism for the removal of dust by gas sumblimating on or near the surface.. BUT WE SEE 'jets" of dust, how Reality Check?

Again...

Quote:

The ratio of vapor pressure to the physically determined tensile strength for various agglomerate sizes and layer thicknesses provides further evidence that the gas drag is not sufficient to remove dust grains of sizes <1 mm, which is a result of taking cohesion forces among the particles into account.

the purported inefficacy of gas drag in the referenced paper is specifically for "dust grains of sizes <1 mm".


From a related paper...

Quote:

Conclusions. Our model can explain the large grains (ranging from 2 cm to 1 m in radius) in the inner coma of comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko
that have been observed by the OSIRIS camera at heliocentric distances between 3.4 AU and 3.7 AU. Furthermore, the
model predicts the release of decimeter-sized aggregates (trail particles) close to the heliocentric distance at which the gas-driven dust
activity vanishes. However, the gas-driven dust activity cannot explain the presence of particles smaller than ∼ 1mm in the coma
because the high tensile strength required to detach these particles from the surface cannot be provided by evaporation of volatile ices.
These smaller particles can be produced for instance by spin-up and centrifugal mass loss of ejected larger aggregates.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08545.pdf

[Reality Check]

I will not quote yet another post full of lies
4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that sublimating supervolatiles can not remove dust at any distance from the Sun when he has cited a paper stating that they can at 23 AU !
A Comet Active Beyond the Crystallization Zone

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that sublimating supervolatiles cannot remove dust at 23 AU when he has cited a paper stating that they can.
A Comet Active Beyond the Crystallization Zone

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that observations must fit the mainstream comet model when it is the model that must fit as many observations as possible like all scientific models.

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the working mainstream comet model is falsified.

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that Skorov wants to replace the working mainstream comet model.
Skorov et. al are the only people who think that gas drag cannot explain the lifting of small grains of dust (< 1 mm). They believes that gas drag does lift grains of dust > 1 mm in size.
Is near-surface ice the driver of dust activity on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Yu. V. Skorov, L. Rezac1, P. Hartogh1 and H. U. Keller

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that there is no viable mechanism for the removal of dust by gas sublimating on or near the surface.
The sublimation of H2O, CO2, CO, O2, and N2 ices are the mechanism for all comets. For K2 @ 23 AU:
Emphasized the parts he lied about. The activity of Comet K2 is explained by CO2, CO, O2, and N2 ices at the surface.

[Reality Check]

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?
8. 23 August 2017 Sol88: Why does comet dust not match planetary rock or asteroid composition?
9. 23 August 2017 Sol88: What is your evidence that comets were blasted from planets such as the Earth?
10. 28 August 2017 Sol88: What is your prediction for the "water produced per surface area of nucleus" on Hartley 2?
11. 14 September 2017 Sol88: Cite the observations from comet jets of narrow band x-rays bursts that electrical discharges emit.

No honesty yet:
4 September 2017 Sol88: Are you not honest enough to acknowledge the Thunderbolts comet origins?

3 October 2017 Sol88: Give the electric comet calculation of the distance(s) that comet coma form.

Lies about the mainstream mechanism of sublimating ices lifting dust from comet nuclei so let us get back to the subject of the thread:
4 October 2017 Sol88: Cite the electric comet modeling of the lifting of dust from comet nuclei.
Probably impossible since all you have shown in 8 years is mindless parroting of the Thunderbolts ignorant delusions about comets based on Immanuel Velikovsky's ignorant fantasies about planets.

Electric comets still do not exist!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by The Man

Again...



the purported inefficacy of gas drag in the referenced paper is specifically for "dust grains of sizes <1 mm".


From a related paper...




https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08545.pdf

Is the dust CHARGED?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

The dirty snowball is the 1950s model, sorry Sol, but research means that things develop. If they would not, you would be posting your junk on a clay tablet using cuniform.

But of course mainstream physics is not allowed to develop any starting models, they have to immediately reject their ideas and embrace the so called "electric universe" nonsense.

Skorov is the only one at the moment who does not believe in gas drag, and whether his ideas bear any merit will have to be seen. At presentations in Riga during the EPSC it was found that the dust and gas move together, and modeling of outgassing on 67P and then adding dust could very well explain the observations that were made. So it can be quite possible that Skorov is, dare I say it, wrong.

Big call, cobber, big call!

Someone is wrong for sure

Whipple was somewhat off the mark as the revisions are not looking favourable to ice with some dust model, so the ratio was revised to dusty with some ice

Quote:

Initial gas and dust emissions revealed a dust-to-gas ratio of 4±2 for 3.7–3.4AU [56] (6±2 if only water is considered) and 3.8–6.5 between 4.5 and 2.9AU [17] (with a dust loss rate evolution from 3.7 to 2.9AU of 0.5–15 kg s-1), which, when combined with the other physical characteristics above, imply a rather porous nucleus (approx. 72–74%), that is an icy dust ball rather than a dusty snowball, and one that is rather homogeneous down to 10–100m scales [34,41]

, now tending towards mostly rocky consolidated with minimal ice...

Quote:

Here ‘consolidated’ is used to refer to areas that appear rocky
in appearance and are cohesive enough to display lineaments and fractures.

The Rosetta mission orbiter science overview: the comet phase
M. G. G. T. Taylor1,†, N. Altobelli2, B. J. Buratti3 and M. Choukroun3

Quote:

(c) What are comets made of? At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].

Comets: looking ahead
Michael F. A’Hearn

Not his fault as we knew nothing about outer space then but it is the mainstream fault for ignoring the overwhelming electrical effects now more than obviously dominate on/in and around a comet and trying to keep the dirtysnowballl alive!


So where to now Tusenfem?

How long do you still try and model comets as dirtysnowballs? Reality Check still thinks they are

[Reality Check]

Usual idiocy and lies.
4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that any observation shows the comets are rocky (even if the word is struck out).

4 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a paper about 67P debunking his comet delusions.

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that we knew nothing about outer space in the 1950's.
Whipple knew the measured densities of comets (less then water).

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the mainstream has ignored electrical effects.

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that imaginary "overwhelming electrical effects" have ever been detected or "dominate" around comets.
What has been detected are the mainstream effects, e.g. comet coma interacting with the solar wind. No evidence for his comet delusions have ever been detected. No electrical discharges. Nm massive electric field between comets and the Sun.

4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that I think that comets are modeled as dirty snowballs.
Comets are modeled as real world comets with nuclei made of varying proportions of ices and dust ! Comets have been described as several things, e.g. "dirty snowballs". The working comet model is sometimes labeled as the dirty snowball model but everyone (except you!) knows that this includes all compositions of comets.

[Reality Check]

275 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 2 October 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

1. 3 October 2017 Sol88: A stupid question derailing from his delusions about comets.
   
2. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.
   
3. 3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.
   
4. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS) paper about ice and dust comets.
   
5. 3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS) paper about ice and dust comets.
   
6. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The only "plenty" that is going on is more posts full of ignorance, delusions and lies
   
7. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The persistent lie of a "dirtysnowball" model existing
   
8. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The insanity that scientific models cannot change when new data is collected.
   
9. 3 October 2017 Sol88: A lie about K2 being a "special" comet.
   
10. 3 October 2017 Sol88: Repeats a lie of "supervolatiles" can not remove dust at 1.3 au.
    
11. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The delusion that every comet is the same, e.g. K2 and 67P !
    
12. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that sublimating supervolatiles can not remove dust at any distance from the Sun when he has cited a paper stating that they can at 23 AU !
    
13. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that sublimating supervolatiles cannot remove dust at 23 AU when he has cited a paper stating that they can.
    
14. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that observations must fit the mainstream comet model when it is the model that must fit as many observations as possible like all scientific models.
    
15. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the working mainstream comet model is falsified.
    
16. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that Skorov wants to replace the working mainstream comet model.
    
17. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that there is no viable mechanism for the removal of dust by gas sublimating on or near the surface.
    
18. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that any observation shows the comets are rocky (even if the word is struck out).
    
19. 4 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a paper about 67P debunking his comet delusions.
    
20. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that we knew nothing about outer space in the 1950's.
    
21. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the mainstream has ignored electrical effects.
    
22. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that imaginary "overwhelming electrical effects" have ever been detected or "dominate" around comets.
    
23. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that I think that comets are modeled as dirty snowballs.

Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88)
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

275 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 2 October 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)

1. 3 October 2017 Sol88: A stupid question derailing from his delusions about comets.
   
2. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.
   
3. 3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a near-surface ice paper about ice and dust comets.
   
4. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS) paper about ice and dust comets.
   
5. 3 October 2017 Sol88: Lies about a C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS) paper about ice and dust comets.
   
6. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The only "plenty" that is going on is more posts full of ignorance, delusions and lies
   
7. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The persistent lie of a "dirtysnowball" model existing
   
8. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The insanity that scientific models cannot change when new data is collected.
   
9. 3 October 2017 Sol88: A lie about K2 being a "special" comet.
   
10. 3 October 2017 Sol88: Repeats a lie of "supervolatiles" can not remove dust at 1.3 au.
    
11. 3 October 2017 Sol88: The delusion that every comet is the same, e.g. K2 and 67P !
    
12. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that sublimating supervolatiles can not remove dust at any distance from the Sun when he has cited a paper stating that they can at 23 AU !
    
13. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that sublimating supervolatiles cannot remove dust at 23 AU when he has cited a paper stating that they can.
    
14. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that observations must fit the mainstream comet model when it is the model that must fit as many observations as possible like all scientific models.
    
15. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the working mainstream comet model is falsified.
    
16. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that Skorov wants to replace the working mainstream comet model.
    
17. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that there is no viable mechanism for the removal of dust by gas sublimating on or near the surface.
    
18. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that any observation shows the comets are rocky (even if the word is struck out).
    
19. 4 October 2017 Sol88: The idiocy of citing a paper about 67P debunking his comet delusions.
    
20. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that we knew nothing about outer space in the 1950's.
    
21. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that the mainstream has ignored electrical effects.
    
22. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that imaginary "overwhelming electrical effects" have ever been detected or "dominate" around comets.
    
23. 4 October 2017 Sol88: A lie that I think that comets are modeled as dirty snowballs.

Two years and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.
The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 8 years of delusions from Sol88)
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

Look if you want me to answer any of those questions you'll have to supply me with a complete list

not some half arsed bit n bobs.

thank you

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

How long do you still try and model comets as dirtysnowballs? Reality Check still thinks they are

No

Edited by Agatha:

Removed namecalling, a breach of rule 0/

if you would actually read and understand what I am writing is that the dirty snowball was invented in the 1950s when we had NO close up views whatsoever of comets. As soon as the flybys by Halley happened in the 1980s it became clear that the nucleus looked different from what was thought in the simple model dubbed "dirty snowball" (i.e. volatile ices such as H2O and CO2, bound in a solid rocky body of meteoritic material) needed to be revised, and so it moved on and on with more observations of more comets more information about the structure is found and thereby the dirty snowball model is adapted. THIS IS JUST THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, YOU START FROM A SIMPLE EXPLANATION AND THEN MOVE ON FROM THERE IF YOU GET MORE OBSERVATIONS, AMEND THE MODEL.

I guess you think that Einstein should have thrown away Newton's work, and have started from scratch to explain gravity.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Is the dust CHARGED?

Most likely part of the dust is charged, that's what happens with dust in a plasma, so what?