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 24th August 2017, 07:39 PM   #241
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,163
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post



Asteroid–comet continuum objects in the solar system Henry H. Hsieh1,2


Mainstream paper on comets and asteroids are ROCK!
__________________
"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; 24th August 2017 at 08:03 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 24th August 2017, 07:44 PM   #242
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,163
Hybrid modelling of cometary plasma environments

go knock yourself out!


If fact, how does that work inside the diamagnetic cavity?
__________________
"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; 24th August 2017 at 08:03 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 24th August 2017, 11:18 PM   #243
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,057
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
but the ELECTRIC COMET...
but the EC WHAT EXACTLY?

please enlighten us by writing up how the electric comet is supposed to work.
but note that even DT could not explain it, because it was not a "model" is was more like a "hypothesis" (I'd say more like loose sand)
YOU seem to be the expert here on the EC, so the burden is on YOU in this thread which is actually called (so you don't forget);

The Electric Comet Theory
__________________
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 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 24th August 2017, 11:22 PM   #244
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,057
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Hybrid modelling of cometary plasma environments

go knock yourself out!


If fact, how does that work inside the diamagnetic cavity?
Maybe you should read Cyril's paper, and then you would see that this paper is about:

Impact of photoionisation, charge exchange, and electron ionisation on bow shock and cometopause at 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

So, methinks you are a few 1000 km in the wrong place.
__________________
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 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 25th August 2017, 05:03 AM   #245
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,163
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Maybe you should read Cyril's paper, and then you would see that this paper is about:

Impact of photoionisation, charge exchange, and electron ionisation on bow shock and cometopause at 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

So, methinks you are a few 1000 km in the wrong place.
But it is coupled via complex plasma phenomena, including I'd say double layers!

Or as you'd call 'em, plasma boundaries

As if in the dust is coupled all the way from the rock hard surface of the comet, all the way in a circuit way out too whoop whoop and back! The focus for the energy is the comet nucleus itself!

The bright spots are not ice but indeed the glow mode electric discharge machining of solid rock producing very fine dust composed on some comets as extremely high temperature minerals. Flash heated in a arc mode EDM, not seen on this low voltage outgassing comet. The bright spots also appear to be changing the surface as we watch.

These are confined into collimated 'jets' that we observe doing there thing.

But Hartley 2, had em stumped for water produced per surface area of nucleus...
__________________
"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; 25th August 2017 at 05:19 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 25th August 2017, 05:49 AM   #246
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,057
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
But it is coupled via complex plasma phenomena, including I'd say double layers!
yeah whatever! you know nothing sol snow

If you are actually interested in the diamagnetic cavity then you should read Etienne Behar's paper The birth and growth of a solar wind cavity around a comet – Rosetta observations

I am still waiting on the first paper by the EC community!
__________________
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 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 27th August 2017, 05:25 PM   #247
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,713
Thumbs down Sol88: Usual idiocy of citing mainstream comet paper and lying about them

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...
28 August 2017 Sol88: Usual idiocy of citing mainstream comet paper and lying about them (no rock in them).
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 27th August 2017, 05:28 PM   #248
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,713
Thumbs down Sol88: Idiotic citation of an irrelevant mainstream comet paper

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
28 August 2017 Sol88: Idiotic citation of an irrelevant mainstream comet paper.
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 27th August 2017, 05:37 PM   #249
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,713
Thumbs down Sol88[/B]: Ignorant "double layer" fantasies

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
But it is coupled via complex plasma phenomena, including I'd say double layers!
28 August 2017 Sol88: Ignorant "double layer" fantasies.

28 August 2017 Sol88: Insanely ignorant statements about "bright spots" based on his comet delusions.

28 August 2017 Sol88: A probable lie about Hartley 2 (no citation).

28 August 2017 Sol88: A delusion about Hartley 2 since his comet delusions have no "water produced per surface area of nucleus" at all !
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 27th August 2017, 05:39 PM   #250
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,713
Question Sol88: What is your prediction for the "water produced per surface area of nucleus"

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?
  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?
28 August 2017 Sol88: What is your prediction for the "water produced per surface area of nucleus" on Hartley 2?
Electric comets still do not exist![/quote]
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 27th August 2017, 05:41 PM   #251
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,713
Thumbs down Sol88: An irrelevant rant with the usual lies about the mainstream model

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well maybe we can start at the start?...
28 August 2017 Sol88: An irrelevant rant with the usual lies about the mainstream model.
The mainstream model of sublimating ices has worked for the last 70 years. Your comet delusions as you know have been debunked since the day they were proposed by the existing data on comets.

Last edited by Reality Check; 27th August 2017 at 05:44 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 27th August 2017, 10:48 PM   #252
Dabop
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 433
I still dont get why Sol seems to equate density with hardness- just because something is hard, doesnt mean its dense, and vice versa

Oh and thankyou to tusenfem and the others for posting links to the various papers, its fascinating to see the progress on the various missions continuing long after the 'media' drops them
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader
Dabop 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 2nd September 2017, 08:49 AM   #253
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,162
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post
I still dont get why Sol seems to equate density with hardness- just because something is hard, doesnt mean its dense, and vice versa
Exactly, dislocations in a lattice structure reduce density but can increase hardness.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness

Quote:
By varying the presence of interstitial atoms and the density of dislocations, a particular metal's hardness can be controlled. Although seemingly counter-intuitive, as the density of dislocations increases, there are more intersections created and consequently more anchor points. Similarly, as more interstitial atoms are added, more pinning points that impede the movements of dislocations are formed. As a result, the more anchor points added, the harder the material will become.

From my metallurgy classes I recall the three primary crystalline structures for steel as Austenite, Pearlite and Martensite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austenite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearlite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martensite

While austenite is denser martensite is significantly harder (can also be harder than pearlite), again due to the number of dislocations.

Quote:
One of the differences between the two phases is that martensite has a body-centered tetragonal (BCT) crystal structure, whereas austenite has a face-centered cubic (FCC) structure. The transition between these two structures requires very little thermal activation energy because it is a diffusionless transformation, which results in the subtle but rapid rearrangement of atomic positions, and has been known to occur even at cryogenic temperatures.[1] Martensite has a lower density than austenite, so that the martensitic transformation results in a relative change of volume.[4] Of considerably greater importance than the volume change is the shear strain which has a magnitude of about 0.26 and which determines the shape of the plates of martensite.[5]

Martensite is not shown in the equilibrium phase diagram of the iron-carbon system because it is not an equilibrium phase. Equilibrium phases form by slow cooling rates that allow sufficient time for diffusion, whereas martensite is usually formed by very high cooling rates. Since chemical processes (the attainment of equilibrium) accelerate at higher temperature, martensite is easily destroyed by the application of heat. This process is called tempering. In some alloys, the effect is reduced by adding elements such as tungsten that interfere with cementite nucleation, but, more often than not, the nucleation is allowed to proceed to relieve stresses. Since quenching can be difficult to control, many steels are quenched to produce an overabundance of martensite, then tempered to gradually reduce its concentration until the preferred structure for the intended application is achieved. The needle-like microstructure of martensite leads to brittle behavior of the material. Too much martensite leaves steel brittle; too little leaves it soft.


Quote:
The highest hardness of a pearlitic steel is 400 Brinell whereas martensite can achieve 700 Brinell.[2]
Austenitic Alloys run about 110 to 256 Brinell.

Similarly ice is less dense than water but harder, though that is due to the nature and rigidity of the lattice structure vs the degrees of freedom in the water phase. In contrast to the dislocations inherent in different lattice structures of steel noted above.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 2nd September 2017, 05:46 PM   #254
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,163
Yup, or it could also be rock, in fact bedrock!

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


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.
But yeah interesting about metal hardness
__________________
"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 2nd September 2017, 05:58 PM   #255
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,163
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post
I still dont get why Sol seems to equate density with hardness- just because something is hard, doesnt mean its dense, and vice versa

Oh and thankyou to tusenfem and the others for posting links to the various papers, its fascinating to see the progress on the various missions continuing long after the 'media' drops them
I don't get why they designed and lander to land on a comet, made as we KNOW of dust and ice, and not design the penetrator to penetrate highly porous 'ice' with some dust!

Complete FAIL! Unless they just proved comets are NOT made from ice and dust matrix

Which I think, from the abstract, is the correct terminology for a comet nucleus, comets are a ROCKY body!
__________________
"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; 2nd September 2017 at 06:00 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 2nd September 2017, 06:08 PM   #256
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,163
So really the only question is if comets are rocks, rocky, well consolidated material, bedrock... take your pick. Then what are the implications for the solar nebula hypothesis?

Or as Reality check would like to know, 'where does the rock come from'?
__________________
"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; 2nd September 2017 at 06:10 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 3rd September 2017, 07:28 AM   #257
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,162
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yup, or it could also be rock, in fact bedrock!

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
Your citaion doesn't say "in fact bedrock" it refers to "Layered bedrock units...". a method of identifying different layers of stratified material.

https://www1.maine.gov/dacf/mgs/pubs...k/bed-read.htm

How exactly does the EC model the lithification of that "in fact bedrock"?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
But yeah interesting about metal hardness
The dislocation and anchoring factors apply to hardness in general and have particular relevance for stratified materials. As those dislocation and anchoring elements can be an inherent result of the layering process.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 3rd September 2017, 07:32 AM   #258
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,162
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So really the only question is if comets are rocks, rocky, well consolidated material, bedrock... take your pick. Then what are the implications for the solar nebula hypothesis?

Or as Reality check would like to know, 'where does the rock come from'?
The words you simply pick have no "implications for the solar nebula hypothesis".
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 3rd September 2017, 02:46 PM   #259
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,713
Thumbs down Sol88: The usual lie about comets being rock by citing mainstream papers

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yup, or it could also be rock, in fact bedrock!
4 September 2017 Sol88: The usual lie about comets being rock with citing mainstream ices and dust papers.
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 3rd September 2017, 02:53 PM   #260
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,713
Thumbs down Sol88: 2 lies about the MUPUS-PEN design and testing that he has cited several times

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
I don't get why they designed and lander to land on a comet, made as we KNOW of dust and ice, and not design the penetrator to penetrate highly porous 'ice' with some dust!
A 'ice' lie.
Another lie because he does know about the MUPUS-PEN design and testing using the knowledge of comets in about 2001. MUPUS-PEN was designed to penetrate highly porous ice with some dust. What we found was highly porous sintered ice with some dust.
4 September 2017 Sol88: A couple of lies about the MUPUS-PEN design and testing that he has cited several times.
4 September 2017 Sol88: Usual unthinking parroting of Thunderbolts cult dogma of comets being rocks.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd September 2017 at 02:55 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 3rd September 2017, 03:07 PM   #261
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,713
Thumbs down 2017 Sol88: 8 years of denial of basic arithmetic (0.6 g/cc < 3.0 g/cc)

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So really the only question is ...
The question is whether you will ever stop mindlessly parrot your comet delusions (comets are rocks, etc.). The answer is obviously never because we have:
4 September 2017 Sol88: 8 years of denial of basic arithmetic (0.6 g/cc < 3.0 g/cc).

Emphasizing that the electric comet is not only insanely deluded but also completely useless is not smart.
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?
Silence from you needs the question:
4 September 2017 Sol88: Are you not honest enough to acknowledge Thunderbolts comet origins?
If you are then cite it and say that you support it.

Electric comets still do not exist!
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 3rd September 2017, 03:07 PM   #262
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,163
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
The words you simply pick have no "implications for the solar nebula hypothesis".

Quote:
Astronomers aren't sure whether the minerals found in Stardust's comet samples formed near the Sun or around another star, though isotope scans are expected determine that for sure in upcoming tests, Brownlee said. Olivine, a mix of iron and magnesium that appears green on some Earth beaches, is one of the several surprising compounds found in the Wild 2 samples, he added.

Michael Zolensky, Stardust curator and a mission co-investigator at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC), said astronomers believed that a sort of material "zoning" occurred during the Solar System's formation.

According to the model, substances formed under hotter temperatures closer to the Sun, while colder materials - such as the gases that make up the giant planets - took root further out, he added.

But if Stardust's comet samples are found to be local to the Solar System, and not from some distant start, they'd suggest a sort of transportation system to fling particles formed near the Sun out past the orbit of Pluto and into the comet realm, researchers said.

"If this mixing is occurring, as suggested by these results, than how do you preserve any kind of zoning in the solar system," Zolenksy said. "It raises more mysteries."
NASA's Stardust Comet Samples Contain Minerals Born in Fire

Quote:
Spitzer was one of the 80 or so telescopes trained on Comet 9P/Tempel 1 when it rammed into the 370-kilogram copper-tipped impactor sent into its path. A spectrometer on the telescope detected a mix of materials as they streamed off the comet, including crystallised silicates, clay and carbonates.

Clay and carbonates are thought to form in liquid water, which can only exist for long periods on the surface of planets or other objects no further from the Sun than Mars. But comets such as Tempel 1 are thought to have formed as smaller chunks of material smashed together around the orbit of Neptune – where any water would be in the form of ice.

“How did clay and carbonates form in frozen comets?” says Carey Lisse, an astronomer at the University of Maryland in College Park, US, who observed the impact with Spitzer. “We don’t know, but their presence may imply that the primordial solar system was thoroughly mixed together, allowing material formed near the Sun where water is liquid, and frozen material from out by Uranus and Neptune, to be included in the same body.”
Comet’s minerals hint at liquid water


But the new stuff
__________________
"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 3rd September 2017, 03:21 PM   #263
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,713
Thumbs down Sol88: The idiocy again of citing mainstream comets are not rocks science

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
[But ...
4 September 2017 Sol88: The idiocy again of citing mainstream comets are not rocks science!
Insane repeating what has been already addressed in the last 8 years of the thread.
NASA's Stardust Comet Samples Contain Minerals Born in Fire
Stardust detected the expected non-planetary grains but his delusions demand planetary material.
The grains formed in the early solar system but his delusions demand grains formed today.
Some of the grains have minerals formed in the inner solar system ("Born in Fire") and were transported to the outer solar system to make up comets.

Comet’s minerals hint at liquid water
Liquid water as in ices melted by heat from the Sun - again in the early solar system !
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 3rd September 2017, 03:24 PM   #264
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,163
GIADA: shining a light on the monitoring of the comet dust production from the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov Gerasimenko


Quote:
The measured masses and speeds of compact particles are in the range from 10−10 to 3.9 × 10−7 kg and from 0.3 to 12.2 ms−1, respectively.
So a bit rock like.

Quote:
The analysis of compact particle speeds versus cometocentric distance shows that in the dust acceleration region, the dust speed increases from 2.5 ± 0.8 ms−1 at 10 km to 4.3 ± 0.9 ms−1 at 30 km.
Accelerating? I hear you say...

But

Quote:
We were able to describe the evolution of the 3D dust distribution with respect to the distance from the comet and to identify the spatial distribution of different types of dust particles: uffy particles, that is, 0.2 to 2.5 mm porous aggregates of submicron grains (equivalent bulk density <1 kgm−3) and compact particles, ranging in size from 80 to 800 microns.
So really small and fluffy and able to clump together but still <1kgm-3.

Quote:
Monitoring the coma terminator dust environment, we give a rough estimate of the dust activity increase at decreasing heliocentric distance of roughly a factor of about 6 from 3.36 to 2.43 AU.
So really dusty too??

Quote:
The dust flux of submicron particles coming from the solar direction is three times higher than the one coming directly from the nucleus. The measured dust flux anisotropy confirms what was predicted by on-ground dust coma observations (Fulle et al. 2010).
Sublimating 'ice' can do this???



And along with the other minerals observed on a comet and in situ testing and hi res observation, would suggest, strongly, that comet nuclei are not icy dusty conglomerates.
__________________
"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 3rd September 2017, 03:33 PM   #265
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,713
Thumbs down Sol88: Repeated idiocy of citing a mainstream comets are ices and dust paper

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
GIADA: shining a light on the monitoring of the comet dust production from the nucleus of 67P/Churyumov Gerasimenko
4 September 2017 Sol88: Repeated idiocy of citing a mainstream comets are ices and dust paper, making deluded comments and a lie.
For example his current delusion that dust grains must have the same density as the bulk of a comet (ices + dust).
He lies about the empirical evidence that has for the last 70 years and still shows that comet nuclei are "icy dusty conglomerates".

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd September 2017 at 03:38 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 3rd September 2017, 03:36 PM   #266
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,163
Quote:
This work is in progress; for the time being, we only note that the highest values for particle mass and speed are related to confirmed active areas. These dust particle dynamical parameters support a preliminary study of the acceleration region within the 67P coma
Righto but

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. Away out of 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

So should this mob talk to the other mob?
__________________
"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 3rd September 2017, 03:38 PM   #267
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,163
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
4 September 2017 Sol88: Repeated idiocy of citing a mainstream comets are ices and dust paper and making deluded comments.
How much 'ice' did they find RC?

even in the really close orbits?
__________________
"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 3rd September 2017, 03:48 PM   #268
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,713
Thumbs down Sol88: Repeats the 'ice' lie. in an insanely ignorant question

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
How much 'ice' did they find RC?
4 September 2017 Sol88: Repeats the 'ice' lie in an insanely ignorant and irrelevant question.
Insanely ignorant because over the last 8 years we have cited the many observsions that comets have ices, e.g. the ejecta from Deep Impact (5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water).
Irrelevant because this is a thread abut his comet delusions that he is still unable to support after 8 years.

Posters here have been kind enough to try to educate him about the real world of comets but it has become clear that he is too deep into the delusional pit of Thunderbolts dogma to ever emerge again. So all we get now are lying posts about mainstream ices and dust comets and irrelevant time wasting questions that I for one will not answer.
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 3rd September 2017, 03:50 PM   #269
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,163
So really
Quote:
The dislocation and anchoring factors apply to hardness in general and have particular relevance for stratified materials. As those dislocation and anchoring elements can be an inherent result of the layering process.
would be quite the something considering!
__________________
"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 3rd September 2017, 03:51 PM   #270
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,713
Thumbs down Sol88: Repeated idiocy of citing a mainstream comets are ices and dust paper

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Righto but
4 September 2017 Sol88: Repeated idiocy of citing a mainstream comets are ices and dust paper with a lie.
The "mobs" are talking to each other through the scientific literature.
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 3rd September 2017, 03:51 PM   #271
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,163
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
4 September 2017 Sol88: Repeats the 'ice' lie in an insanely ignorant and irrelevant question.
Insanely ignorant because over the last 8 years we have cited the many observsions that comets have ices, e.g. the ejecta from Deep Impact (5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water).
Irrelevant because this is a thread abut his comet delusions that he is still unable to support after 8 years.

Posters here have been kind enough to try to educate him about the real world of comets but it has become clear that he is too deep into the delusional pit of Thunderbolts dogma to ever emerge again. So all we get now are lying posts about mainstream ices and dust comets and irrelevant time wasting questions that I for one will not answer.
__________________
"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 3rd September 2017, 03:56 PM   #272
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,713
Exclamation Sol88: An irrelevant but correct comment about a quote on mainstream comets

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So really would be quite the something considering!
4 September 2017 Sol88: An irrelevant but correct comment about stratified materials for comets made of ices and dust.
Needs an exclamation mark after so many deluded or lying posts !
The mechanisms creating stratification in comet nuclei made of ices and dust should be and are being considered in the real world of science.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd September 2017 at 03:58 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 3rd September 2017, 04:07 PM   #273
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,713
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
An obvious 'ice' lie that you have been repeating for years is just one reason that there is no point in trying to lift you out of the pit of dogma you have dug yourself into.
4 September 2017 Sol88: Repeats the 'ice' lie in an insanely ignorant and irrelevant question.

There is also the current idiocy of citing mainstream papers:
4 September 2017 Sol88: The idiocy again of citing mainstream comets are not rocks science!

If you want to show that you can pull yourself out of that pit then all you have to do is show that I am wrong with:
4 September 2017 Sol88: 8 years of denial of basic arithmetic (0.6 g/cc < 3.0 g/cc).
by not denying the measured density of comets. Or show how the several methods of doing those measurements are all wrong and give the correct densities from your theory.
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 3rd September 2017, 04:10 PM   #274
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,713
Yet more Sol88 posts with ignorance, delusions or lies so the list needs an update.
254 items of ignorance, delusion and lies dating from 29 August 2016 to 23August 2017 (maybe hundreds more in the last 8 years!)
  1. 24 August 2017 Sol88: An idiotic question - comets are not made of rock so MUPUS-PEN was not tested into rock!
  2. 24 August 2017 Sol88: The problem is his ignorant delusions about a paper (bulk = not surface!).
  3. 24 August 2017 Sol88: Idiotic mention of a paper on ices and dust comets in his comet delusions thread.
  4. 24 August 2017 Sol88: A lie about an ""old chestnut" when we have mechanisms to put dust in the coma which he has cited .
  5. 24 August 2017 Sol88: Second idiotic mention of a paper on ices and dust comets in his comet delusions thread.
  6. 24 August 2017 Sol88: Third idiotic mention of a paper on ices and dust comets in his comet delusions thread.
  7. 24 August 2017 Sol88: Third time today not citing the papers he mentions and quotes.
  8. 25 August 2017 Sol88: Idiotic citing of a mainstream paper in a thread about his comet delusions.
  9. 25 August 2017 Sol88: Citing a paper that debunks the comets are rocks part of his delusions!
  10. 28 August 2017 Sol88: Usual idiocy of citing mainstream comet paper and lying about them (no rock in them).
  11. 28 August 2017 Sol88: Idiotic citation of an irrelevant mainstream comet paper.
  12. 28 August 2017 Sol88: Ignorant "double layer" fantasies.
  13. 28 August 2017 Sol88: Insanely ignorant statements about "bright spots" based on his comet delusions.
  14. 28 August 2017 Sol88: A probable lie about Hartley 2 (no citation).
  15. 28 August 2017 Sol88: A delusion about Hartley 2 since his comet delusions have no "water produced per surface area of nucleus" at all !
  16. 28 August 2017 Sol88: An irrelevant rant with the usual lies about the mainstream model.
  17. 4 September 2017 Sol88: The usual lie about comets being rock with citing mainstream ices and dust papers.
  18. 4 September 2017 Sol88: A couple of lies about the MUPUS-PEN design and testing that he has cited several times.
  19. 4 September 2017 Sol88: Usual unthinking parroting of Thunderbolts cult dogma of comets being rocks.
  20. 4 September 2017 Sol88: 8 years of denial of basic arithmetic (0.6 g/cc < 3.0 g/cc).
  21. 4 September 2017 Sol88: The idiocy again of citing mainstream comets are not rocks science!
  22. 4 September 2017 Sol88: Repeated idiocy of citing a mainstream comets are ices and dust paper, making deluded comments and a lie.
  23. 4 September 2017 Sol88: Repeats the 'ice' lie in an insanely ignorant and irrelevant question.
  24. 4 September 2017 Sol88: Repeated idiocy of citing a mainstream comets are ices and dust paper with a lie.
  25. 4 September 2017 Sol88: An irrelevant but correct comment about stratified materials for comets made of ices and dust !
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 3rd September 2017, 04:52 PM   #275
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,162
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

Nope, I'm aware of nothing in the solar nebula hypothesis that would specifically preclude all methods of mixing.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 3rd September 2017, 04:54 PM   #276
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,162
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So really would be quite the something considering!

Well, again it is "quite the something" when considering hardness.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 3rd September 2017, 05:32 PM   #277
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,281
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So really would be quite the something considering!
Let's make this easy , Sol. Start from here, dear; what is this?



That was 2011. So, what are we still talking about, lovey? The idiot Thornhill was wrong, wasn't he dear? Couldn't figure out some basic science. Like the solar wind hurtling into non-existent O- ions to create (water, OH)? What was that rubbish all about? Not going to happen, is it petal? Sci-Fi!
So, please, as has been asked before, many times, explain what we SHOULD have seen at this non-electric comet. I guess I don't need to link to previous posts by D. Talbott, or the garbage posted on Hollowscience, no?

Even as far as pseudoscience goes, this is a massive failure. Hardly bloody surprising, given the lack of scientific credentials of the burkes who came up with it, eh?

So, go on Sol, what is it that the two aforementioned loons came up with, that everybody else has missed? And then I'll link back to Talbott's post on here, re the predictions of what should be found. And wasn't.

However, please start with the above photo. What is it? Multiple choice, dear:

A) Limestone.
B) Ice.
C) An absolute disaster for the interplanetary division of the Medellin cartel.

Let's start from there, yes?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
jonesdave116 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 3rd September 2017, 05:53 PM   #278
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,281
Lest we forget (and I can't be bothered with refs, because they've been done soooo many times);
The comet isn't rock (MIRO, CONSERT, plus orbital measurements, plus the 9P impact).
There IS H2O, as has been well known since 1985 (KAO), plus umpteen other detections.
There is no electric woo. As (not) measured. As per, for instance, the diamagnetic cavity at 1P and 67P. No magnetic field = (fill in as necessary).

To finish, without writing 5000 words, the electric comet woo has been shown to be total woo, as expected, by numerous missions to comets, as well as distant observations of such. It is nonsense. It is cretinous nonsense, in fact. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-idiotic idea. It has gone to meet the choir invisible. It is an ex idea.
Goodnight Polly. Bye bye David. Tata Wal. Try better next time. Loons.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
jonesdave116 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 4th September 2017, 04:55 AM   #279
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,281
Quote:
The bright spots are not ice but indeed the glow mode electric discharge machining of solid rock producing very fine dust composed on some comets as extremely high temperature minerals. Flash heated in a arc mode EDM, not seen on this low voltage outgassing comet. The bright spots also appear to be changing the surface as we watch.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hilarious! No, Sol, the bright spots are, indeed, ice. As has been pointed out to you numerous times. With links to the papers. The fact that you still believe this garbage just shows that your belief system is just that; a belief system. You want to believe it, despite ALL the evidence showing you, and the loon Thornhill, to be wrong. And with not a scintilla of evidence to back up your loopy beliefs.

Detection of exposed H2O ice on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as observed by Rosetta OSIRIS and VIRTIS instruments
Barucci, M.A. et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.00551.pdf

They even made temperature estimates of the icy spots. Now, how hot is this non-existent electric woo? What would be its signature with those instruments? Please explain. Scientifically.

Quote:
But it is coupled via complex plasma phenomena, including I'd say double layers!
Ye Gods! The arrogance and ignorance on full display here! An unqualified woo believer, who thinks that comets are rocks, blasted off of planets by thunderbolts of the Gods, lecturing an actual plasma astrophysicist (who did his PhD on double layers) about double layers! Unbelievable, Jeff.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

Last edited by jonesdave116; 4th September 2017 at 05:08 AM.
jonesdave116 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 4th September 2017, 05:58 AM   #280
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,281
Quote:
As if in the dust is coupled all the way from the rock hard surface of the comet, all the way in a circuit way out too whoop whoop and back! The focus for the energy is the comet nucleus itself!
What circuit? What energy? Whatever you are talking about (and it is very hard to tell), none of this imagined circuitry or energy is electrical woo, is it? Look up "diamagnetic cavity". It reaches from the surface to varying distances. A few hundred km at 67P, ~4500km at Halley. No magnetic field in that cavity. Plenty of dust, plenty of neutrals, some ions. None of it giving off a magnetic signature. Please explain. Scientifically.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
jonesdave116 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
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 01:43 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.