• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Apparent inconsistencies in our scientific understanding of comets

JeanTate

Illuminator
J
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Messages
4,001
I am starting this thread out of frustration at the lack of relevant content in the The Electric Comet Theory /SAFIRE Part V thread.

Initially that thread - or rather, its predecessors - kept more or less on target, and there were many posts on electric comet models etc, and discussions thereon.

For quite some time now, however, the thread has had ~zero such; rather, ones like this, from earlier today:

Sol88 said:
also tusenfem. :thumbsup:





How long are comet tails again? Cylinders, helical, and currents! Imagine if counter rotation was also discovered...sound familiar.
Click to expand...

I hope this thread can be a place to discuss apparent inconsisencies in, and ask questions about, the contemporary understanding of comets. Scientifically.
 
I would add to the above, that quoting models as they were understood in the 1950s is not a valid criticism of current scientific theory re comets. At least let's keep it to post-Halley understanding (1986). At the very least, post-AMPTE (1984-5).
 
This may be a quite short thread. I am not aware of any apparent inconsistencies in our scientific understanding of comets. There is the usual scientific debate about whether papers on comets are correct or not.
 
Ok I’ll post,

(c) Whatarecometsmadeof? 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]. N
Click to expand...

Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn

Rock or dust?
 
Maybe you mob could discusss.

Inordertomodeltheoutgassingofacometatarateofn[moleculess1],asphericalexpansionisassumedwherethegasmovesawayfromthenucleusatavelocityofe[m/s].Theneutralsgas,escapingfromthecometwillgetionizedbysolarUVradiationand/orcollisionswiththesolarwindatarateof[s1].Usingthis,theradialdependenceoftheneutralgasdensityncanbeformulatedbytheHaser[1957]model:
Click to expand...

Haser model????


How’s that going?
 
Sol88 said:
Ok I’ll post,



Comets: looking ahead Michael F. A’Hearn

Rock or dust?
Click to expand...
Neither.

Misunderstanding by you. As was explained in the Electric Comet Theory/SAFIRE thread.

So this post is spam, right?
 
Sol88 said:
Maybe you mob could discusss.

Inordertomodeltheoutgassingofacometatarateofn[moleculess1],asphericalexpansionisassumedwherethegasmovesawayf romthenucleusatavelocityofe[m/s].Theneutralsgas,escapingfromthecometwillgetionized bysolarUVradiationand/orcollisionswiththesolarwindatarateof[s1].Usingthis,theradialdependenceoftheneutralgasdensi tyncanbeformulatedbytheHaser[1957]model:
Click to expand...

Haser model????


How’s that going?
Click to expand...
What you quote is gibberish. And there is no source given.

Would you care to try again?

Also, who or what is "you mob"?
 
Sol88 said:
Rock or dust?
Click to expand...
A lying post from Sol88. This is not any inconsistencies in our scientific understanding of comets.
  • Michael F. A’Hearn wrote hundreds of papers on ices and dust comets.
    It is dust.
  • It is common for comet researchers to use geology terms about comets made of ices and dust.
    We see the terms rock, bedrock, stone, boulders, etc. applied to ices and dust comets.
    It is dust.
  • We have evidence for only 2 comets that those 2 comets are not made of mostly ices.
    Tempel 1 ejecta from Deep Impact was 20% to 50% water and rest dust.
    67P was at least 17% ices and rest dust.
    It is dust.
Michael F. A’Hearn wrote his personal opinion that astronomers are evolving toward comets being more '"rock" than ices.
 
Sol88 said:
Haser model????
Click to expand...
A lying post from Sol88. This is not any inconsistencies in our scientific understanding of comets. The 1957 Haser model was a scientific model of the production of daughter products from sublimating ices on comet nuclei.

The "gibberish" Sol88 quoted is consistent and basic science: "In order to model the outgassing of a comet at a rate of n[moleculess1], a spherical expansion is assumed where the gas moves away from the nucleus at a velocity of e[m/s].". In any scientific model there are assumptions that are made to allow predictions from the model. These are explicitly stated so the rational people can understand their effects. It would be insane to have a model that cannot predict anything :eye-poppi! The Haser model in 1957 had the assumption of a spherically symmetric coma. This is mostly correct for most comets. A spherical nucleus will have very uniform outgassing with a small difference between day and night sides that will cancel out as the nucleus spins. That equals a spherically symmetric coma. The approximation will get less correct with less spherical nuclei. There will be interactions with the solar wind. to distort the coma.

See A re-evaluation of the Haser model scale lengths for comets (1985)
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Maybe you mob could discusss.



Haser model????


How’s that going?
Click to expand...

Oh dear. More lying by omission. As has already been made quite clear, with links to the relevant literature, many sophisticated models, based on very accurate shape models, have been used to estimate the gas production from the instruments on Rosetta. For instruments at far greater distance, the Haser model is fine. All measurements have a good degree of agreement.
I'm afraid this is just more of the dishonesty of EU that Tim Thompson highlighted. No science, so they resort to lying and obfuscation. With Thornhill as one of their figureheads, that is not so surprising. He is adept at it. Fortunately, most people aren't stupid enough to be taken in by his rubbish.
 
sorry, copy and paste not working nicely.

In order to model the outgassing of a comet at a rate of n[moleculess1],a spherical expansion is assumed where the gas moves away from the nucleus at a velocity of e[m/s].The neutrals gas,escaping from the comet will get ionized by solarUV radiation and/or collisions with the solarwind at a rate of[s1].Using this,the radial dependence of the neutral gas density n can be formulated by the Haser[1957]model: A Tail Like No Other
Click to expand...

Is this still how mainstream work out the "outgassing" rate?
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
False dichotomy.
Click to expand...

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]. N
Click to expand...


what say ye abaddon, Rock or Dust?
 
jonesdave116 said:
Oh dear. More lying by omission. As has already been made quite clear, with links to the relevant literature, many sophisticated models, based on very accurate shape models, have been used to estimate the gas production from the instruments on Rosetta. For instruments at far greater distance, the Haser model is fine. All measurements have a good degree of agreement.
I'm afraid this is just more of the dishonesty of EU that Tim Thompson highlighted. No science, so they resort to lying and obfuscation. With Thornhill as one of their figureheads, that is not so surprising. He is adept at it. Fortunately, most people aren't stupid enough to be taken in by his rubbish.
Click to expand...

For instruments at far greater distance, the Haser model is fine???

Just like using Gas laws for plasma, MHD for an overall simple picture of the plasma around a comet.


Problem is, it's led you to believe comets are mostly ice!

but OUR understanding is evolving toward mostly rock.
 
Thanks Sol88.

Sol88 said:
sorry, copy and paste not working nicely.



Is this still how mainstream work out the "outgassing" rate?
Click to expand...
What is the source? What do you mean by "mainstream"? Why do you think this is (or may be) an inconsistency?

Remember, this is a thread devoted to scientific understanding. So please, always, provide a source.
 
There are more than enough mainstream papers to call the mainstream model of icy dirtballs into account!

and when posted 'ol mate JD116 poo poos them. Funny as! The RSI experiment was a classic! Patzold's paper backs A'Hearns statement.

problem is, most posters here cant stand being wrong.

Like the rock/dust issue.
 
JeanTate said:
Thanks Sol88.


What is the source? What do you mean by "mainstream"? Why do you think this is (or may be) an inconsistency?

Remember, this is a thread devoted to scientific understanding. So please, always, provide a source.
Click to expand...

A Tail Like No Other Martin Volwerk1, Charlotte Goetz2, Ingo Richter2, Magda Delva1, Katharina Ostaszewski2, Konrad Schwingenschuh1 and Karl-Heinz Glassmeier2

Give it a go!

mainstream, YOU, have overestimated Q. Which led you to believe comets MUST be mostly ice.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
For instruments at far greater distance, the Haser model is fine???
Click to expand...
Why the triple question marks, Sol88?

Just like using Gas laws for plasma, MHD for an overall simple picture of the plasma around a comet.

Problem is, it's led you to believe comets are mostly ice!

but OUR understanding is evolving toward mostly rock.
Click to expand...
(my bold)

Why are addressing this to jd16?

A reminder: this thread is about science, not personal opinions, whether yours or jd16's.
 
Sol88 said:
sorry, copy and paste not working nicely.



Is this still how mainstream work out the "outgassing" rate?
Click to expand...

How many frigging times do you need to be told? No, it is not. Alright? Need the links? Again? And again? And again? Give up.
 
Sol88 said:
A Tail Like No Other Martin Volwerk1, Charlotte Goetz2, Ingo Richter2, Magda Delva1, Katharina Ostaszewski2, Konrad Schwingenschuh1 and Karl-Heinz Glassmeier2

Give it a go!

mainstream, YOU, have overestimated Q. Which led you to believe comets MUST be mostly ice.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Another lie. Do you ever post anything that isn't a lie? Nobody has said for decades that comets are mostly ice. It is your lie.
 
Please, Sol88, if you think you have identified a scientific inconsistency, point it out. By, for example:

- summarizing what you think is inconsistent

- providing references which present the various aspects.

I’m sure you’d agree that anything less than this would not be science-based.

Further, using this thread to continue to promote Velikovskian nonsense would be spamming it, don’t you agree?

Maybe you’d like to rewrite this post, to make it more consistent with a scientific discussion?

Sol88 said:
There are more than enough mainstream papers to call the mainstream model of icy dirtballs into account!

and when posted 'ol mate JD116 poo poos them. Funny as! The RSI experiment was a classic! Patzold's paper backs A'Hearns statement.

problem is, most posters here cant stand being wrong.

Like the rock/dust issue.
Click to expand...
 
Sol88 said:
...
Click to expand...
Sol88 blatantly lies yet again :jaw-dropp!

Anyone who read about the Haser model knows that it is insane to ask "Is this still how mainstream work out the "outgassing" rate?" when the outgassing rate is an input to the model. The Haser model has an input of Q which is the production rate of the parent species from the sublimating ices on the comet nucleus.

Sol88 knows this from several citations (including one here) of A re-evaluation of the Haser model scale lengths for comets (1985)
 
Sol88 said:
There are more than enough mainstream papers to call the mainstream model of icy dirtballs into account!

and when posted 'ol mate JD116 poo poos them. Funny as! The RSI experiment was a classic! Patzold's paper backs A'Hearns statement.

problem is, most posters here cant stand being wrong.

Like the rock/dust issue.
Click to expand...

Nobody is wrong, with the possible exception of Patzold. Every other measurement, including non-gravitational effects, and plasma observations, agrees well with the published outgassing rates. So, you lose. What factor did Patzold think the highest estimates should be reduced by? Work out how much ice that would entail. Oh, sorry! Can't even do basic arithmetic, can you? Shame. Hundreds of thousands, to millions of tonnes. None of which you can explain.
 
For instruments at far greater distance, the Haser model is fine???
Click to expand...

Yes. Duh! They are looking at essentially a point source, and taking measurements far from the nucleus. Want me to find the quote in a paper, so that you can ignore it. Again?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
what say ye abaddon, Rock or Dust?
Click to expand...
Yet more lies from Sol88. abaddon answered the question - Sol88 presented a false dichotomy.

For others:
No actual rock has ever been detected on comets. All we have detected is dust and ices. Astronomers do label ices and dust consolidated into loose configurations (porosities of 75-85%!) with terrestrial geology terms. Thus Sol88's many years old lie about the term "rock" used by Michael F. A’Hearn not meaning ices and dust.
 
You see, it is the dishonesty and lies of the EUists that have got Sol88 into this pickle re water production. Back in 2006, the liar-in-chief, Thornhill, wrote;


But a much different vantage point on the water question is possible. When
astronomers view the comas of comets spectroscopically, what they actually
see is the hydroxyl radical (OH), which they assume to be a residue of water
(H2O) broken down by the ultraviolet light of the Sun (photolysis). This as-
sumption is not only unwarranted, it requires a speed of “processing” by solar
radiation beyond anything that can be demonstrated experimentally.
Click to expand...

This was in 2006. At that stage we had definitive evidence of H2O in cometary comae going back to 1985 from the Kuiper Airborne Observatory, observing Halley. And then Vega and Giotto at Halley. In the intervening years there were numerous other definitive detections, many of them from the Odin satellite, looking at comae in microwave frequencies. Much as MIRO did at 67P. Sadly, some of the acolytes fell for this lie, and have been struggling to cope with the fact that they have been lied to. This lie essentially underpins their belief system, and is easily shown to be a lie. Most honest folk would have given up on this impossible woo upon realisation that they had been conned.
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
How many frigging times do you need to be told? No, it is not. Alright? Need the links? Again? And again? And again? Give up.
Click to expand...

In order to model the outgassing of a comet at a rate of n[moleculess1],a spherical expansion is assumed where the gas moves away from the nucleus at a velocity of e[m/s].The neutrals gas,escaping from the comet will get ionized by solarUV radiation and/or collisions with the solarwind at a rate of[s1].Using this,the radial dependence of the neutral gas density n can be formulated by the Haser[1957]model: A Tail Like No Other
Click to expand...

Why assume spherical expansion?

Like I said bugger all water coming from a comet.

The loss from gas, based on ROSINA and MIRO observations, suggests that Fcoma, the dust-to-gas mass ratio of cometary matter in the coma beyond the Hill sphere of the nucleus is of the order of Fcoma ≤ 0.5 and therefore at least six times, and perhaps as much as 14 times, smaller than Fnucleus. It seems that the lost gas mass was overestimated by the instruments. The lost gas mass shall be 5.25·109 kg for Fcoma = 1. For any other gas mass values > 5.25·109 kg Fcoma is < 1. Most of the lifted dust mass will not leave the cometary Hill sphere but falls back to the nucleus. For 3 ≤ Fnucleus ≤ 7 and Fcoma = 0.5, the fallback mass is between 1.8·M and 4.3·M.
Click to expand...
The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications

:D

Please post links to keep the question in context.

Electrochemistry is valid. Everything for it is present.

Just because you deny it does not mean it’s not happening. Mainstream have, again, no explanation for the zoo of complex molecules.
 
Last edited:
I’d like to thanks jean tate for starting this thread.

Now I just have to point out the inconsistencies and mainstream can sort it out.

;)
 
Sol88 said:
Why assume spherical expansion?

Like I said bugger all water coming from a comet.

The Nucleus of Comet 67P/ChuryumovGerasimenko - Part I: The Global View – nucleus mass, mass loss, porosity and implications

:D

Please post links to keep the question in context.

Electrochemistry is valid. Everything for it is present.

Just because you deny it does not mean it’s not happening. Mainstream have, again, no explanation for the zoo of complex molecules.
Click to expand...

And more gibberish. Electrochemistry is not valid. By umpteen orders of magnitude. Fail. And there is plenty of water coming from the comet. and others. As observed. Fail. Anything else? Any reason we should listen to wooists with no relevant qualifications? Nor maths skills? Nope, thought not. Which is why nobody does.
 
tusenfem said:
I am sure you have a better model ...
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, there is.

No outgassing needed.

The same process is happening at asteroids. :D


Mainstream can’t even define the difference between a comet and asteroid.

......
In summary, the population of small bodies in our solar system today, including both minor planets and classical comets, is far less well-delineated into distinct groups of objects than the classical paradigm might have led one to believe in the past. These objects instead appear to occupy a continuum spanning the full range of observational, physical and dynamical properties classically attributed solely either to asteroids or comets. We now know of currently actively sublimating main-belt objects that could have originated either in the asteroid belt or in the outer solar system, and objects displaying comet-like activity that may have no volatile ice content whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Given this complexity and the growing interest in addressing the many questions that it has raised thus far, it is likely that many more interesting findings await us in this rapidly developing field in the coming years.
Click to expand...
Asteroid–comet continuum objects in the solar system

Because there is no difference, they are all rocks!

As M.A’Hearn stated,
our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P
Click to expand...
and you mob get ya knickers all bunched up :rolleyes:

As far as I know, A’Hearn is not an idiot, so why treat him as such?

It’s a quote from his paper and he did quantify
rock/dirt/refractory material
Click to expand...
but no dust.


:D
 
jonesdave116 said:
And more gibberish. Electrochemistry is not valid. By umpteen orders of magnitude. Fail. And there is plenty of water coming from the comet. and others. As observed. Fail. Anything else? Any reason we should listen to wooists with no relevant qualifications? Nor maths skills? Nope, thought not. Which is why nobody does.
Click to expand...


You tell me ‘O great and knowledgeable one, why is electrochemistry a NON starter?

It’s all there...

If you can manage that, jonesdave116, with bluster and hand waving, I’ll drop it.

Good luck :thumbsup:
 
Mojo said:
Can you define “rock” and “dust”, in the sense you are using them here?
Click to expand...

Hi Mojo, perhaps since your new here what does a bone fide, real mainstream, principle investigator of the deep impact mission mean when he said....

(c) Whatarecometsmadeof? 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].
Click to expand...

Do you think he meant dust or rock?
 
Sol88 said:
Funnily enough, there is.

No outgassing needed.

The same process is happening at asteroids. :D


Mainstream can’t even define the difference between a comet and asteroid.

......

Asteroid–comet continuum objects in the solar system

Because there is no difference, they are all rocks!

As M.A’Hearn stated, and you mob get ya knickers all bunched up :rolleyes:

As far as I know, A’Hearn is not an idiot, so why treat him as such?

It’s a quote from his paper and he did quantify but no dust.


:D
Click to expand...

And more gibberish and word salad. Comets are not rocks. Stop lying. Asteroids are. The density proves that, among other things. And there are millions of asteroids. Many of them on comet-like orbits. They are not outgassing. And you can't explain why.
 
Sol88 said:
You tell me ‘O great and knowledgeable one, why is electrochemistry a NON starter?

It’s all there...

If you can manage that, jonesdave116, with bluster and hand waving, I’ll drop it.

Good luck :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Errr, you'll have to come up with an actual model that I can look at and take all of 30 seconds to scrutinise, and then tell you why it isn't possible. When can we expect that model, and the quantitative analysis of how much H2O it produces per second? You don't have one. Just more unscientific word salad.
 
Sol88 said:
Hi Mojo, perhaps since your new here what does a bone fide, real mainstream, principle investigator of the deep impact mission mean when he said....



Do you think he meant dust or rock?
Click to expand...

He meant dust, as the references in that paragraph plainly show. Stop lying, and do some science, or admit that it is beyond you, and you only have a faith-based belief. Which we already know.
 
Sol88 said:
Funnily enough, there is.

No outgassing needed.

The same process is happening at asteroids. :D
Click to expand...

That is clearly not an answer, thus the question now is, what is your asteroid model of outgassing then?

Sol88 said:
Mainstream can’t even define the difference between a comet and asteroid.

......

Asteroid–comet continuum objects in the solar system
Click to expand...

And if you would actually read the paper, you would find out how Hsieh defines "comet like" behaviour, which does not mean just outgassing. But I guess reading that much text is too difficult for you.
 
Sol88 said:
You tell me ‘O great and knowledgeable one, why is electrochemistry a NON starter?
Click to expand...

Well one of the reasons was mentioned this post where there is a link to the paper by Kevin Heritier and co workers, where they (in this case) explain why it does not work for the proposed production of O2 (but the same holds for H2O).
 
Sol88 said:
I’d like to thanks jean tate for starting this thread.

Now I just have to point out the inconsistencies and mainstream can sort it out.

;)
Click to expand...
Sol88, I'm sorry to have to tell you that all (or nearly all) your posts in this thread clearly do not belong.

First, "mainstream", here, is meaningless: everything that's posted here should be mainstream. If it's not, it belongs in the General Skepticism and The Paranormal board, or the Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories one.

Second, you should be posting specifics, and relevant papers (or conference proceedings, or textbooks).

Take "dirty snowball" for example.

If you think there's some kind of inconsistency, of the scientific kind, you need to the following sorts of things:
- define what the term means
- reference a paper in which it is used, to describe (some) comets
- reference one or more papers in which evidence (of the quantitative kind) is presented that seems inconsistent with the way the term is used in the originating paper.

One of your (unsourced) quotes seems to come close to this, but your commentary on it is, to put it bluntly, nonsense (post #34).

Would you care to try harder please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom