The Recurring Odd Shape Of Comets

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Just like you saying If the probe does stick there could be a meriad or reasons why the same goes for it not sticking. It not sticking does not go any further to prove the theory you are referring to. So are you saying comets are not composed of volitiles like ice? And I'm still waiting for the mechanism by which comets acquire their negative charge

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Just like you saying If the probe does stick there could be a meriad or reasons why the same goes for it not sticking. It not sticking does not go any further to prove the theory you are referring to. So are you saying comets are not composed of volitiles like ice? And I'm still waiting for the mechanism by which comets acquire their negative charge

Well no, it doesn't work like that.

The standard theory called for the probe drills to be designed with ice in mind, not rock. If it doesn't stick, it's because the surface was not composed of the material scientists expected - otherwise they would have designed the drills to penetrate rock, not ice.

The comet is composed of rock - solid rock - there are no volatiles beneath the surface.

The comet acquires charge because of the surrounding electrical field it orbits in:

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

How many predictions have failed for the standard theory?

None.

The standard theory used to think comets were melting snow balls.

As has been explained to you countless times before, that is not the theory, it is a simplified explanation of it.

Then we imaged a comet nucleus and found that it was pitch black.

Why shouldn't it be? The standard model says that comets are composed of detritus from the formation of the Solar System, including metals and silicates. Spectroscopy also reveals the presence of amino acids and other organic materials. Comets are composed of icy goo.

Then the standard theory used to think comets were dirty melting snowballs.

For the second time in this very post: no, that is not the theory, it is a grade school simplification of it.

Then we looked closer and found comets with no ice on their surface at all.

Ice has been found on the surfaces of some comets, but most of the volatiles are presumed to be in the loosely packed interior.

Now the standard theory says that comets hold all the ice beneath their surface and discharged through holes in the rock.

Not exactly. Comets are porous, and outgas through pores that reach the surface.

Failure after failure after failure.

Failure to comprehend after failure to comprehend.

If the probe doesn't stick, it goes to show how hard the surface is. If the probe does stick, it may be because a layer of dust provides enough traction for it to hold, or possibly because the drills were able to penetrate the rock. There's no way to know for sure. The probe not sticking would simply be one more data point that supports the EU theory out of many.

In other words, you have already found a way to explain the failure of your prediction. A theory that cannot be falsified is not a scientific theory. Your theory predicts that comets can be round or not, and that a space probe will either be able to drill into one or not. That is not a theory, it is a tautology.

If there is no volatiles such as water ice how do you explain these sprectrograph results?
www.esa.int...

Also your still not providing a mechanism your just giving a vague explination the Wikipedia article has many sections which one relates to the comet acquiring a negative electric charge?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

EU theory predicts the Rosetta lander may have problems sticking to the surface of Chury because it will not have any ice to drill into. It will have to drill into solid rock, which will probably cause the lander to bounce off the surface once they attempt to drill into it.

If this prediction fails, will you be willing to admit that EU has no merit?

Don't be silly: that's how SCIENCE works. Woo cannot be disproved.

originally posted by: BGTM90
If there is no volatiles such as water ice how do you explain these sprectrograph results?
www.esa.int...

Also your still not providing a mechanism your just giving a vague explination the Wikipedia article has many sections which one relates to the comet acquiring a negative electric charge?

Mainstream astronomy estimates the water content by observing the OH ions (which, according to mainstream, are produced by water dissociation by solar radiation). But the EU attributes the presence of OH ions to electrical processes involving minerals rather than water.

www.eso.org...

1991 February 22

When this comet passed near the Sun in early 1986, it was a bright, naked-eye object with a spectacular tail. Now, 5 years later, it has moved more than 2140 million kilometres away from the Sun and the sunlight reflected from the 15-kilometre "dirty snowball" nucleus has become so faint that it can hardly be seen, even with large, modern telescopes.
...
it is now known that a cometary nucleus mainly consists of water ice, mixed with dust grains of different sizes

mnras.oxfordjournals.org...

2000 February 28

The macro-features of the surface layer of a ‘fresh’ cometary nucleus are modelled by assuming that the dust and the snow particles of which it consists both have a mass distribution index of 1.65, and that the dust/gas mass ratio is 0.45. Conclusions are drawn as to how this model helps us to understand the cometary sublimation process and the cometary surface layer. The latter most probably consists of weak, low-density, friable, slightly dusty snow. Its ability effectively to support even the small weight of, say, the Rosetta landing probe is in considerable doubt.

a reply to: wildespace

This article states water vapor was observed says nothing about hydroxyl molecules.

originally posted by: BGTM90
If there is no volatiles such as water ice how do you explain these sprectrograph results?
www.esa.int...

Also your still not providing a mechanism your just giving a vague explination the Wikipedia article has many sections which one relates to the comet acquiring a negative electric charge?

The video explains the spectra, and the wiki article explains how surfaces can be charged by being placed into an electric field.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Ah, the video. However did anybody learn anything in the dark days BY (Before YouTube)?

a reply to: Rob48

"Watch the video" = "I don't know."

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: BGTM90
If there is no volatiles such as water ice how do you explain these sprectrograph results?
www.esa.int...

Also your still not providing a mechanism your just giving a vague explination the Wikipedia article has many sections which one relates to the comet acquiring a negative electric charge?

The video explains the spectra, and the wiki article explains how surfaces can be charged by being placed into an electric field.

Is there any scientific evidence/measurements/observations of the outer Solar System being negatively charged, and the inner Solar System (including the Sun) being positively charged?

That's the story the EU theory keeps pushing out, but I haven't seen anything to support it. Nothing to support that the Sun is a glow discharge of a galactic electric current. Nothing to support anything it says, apart from morphological similarities.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Rob48

"Watch the video" = "I don't know."

"Not watching the video" = "I don't want to know."

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: BGTM90
If there is no volatiles such as water ice how do you explain these sprectrograph results?
www.esa.int...

Also your still not providing a mechanism your just giving a vague explination the Wikipedia article has many sections which one relates to the comet acquiring a negative electric charge?

The video explains the spectra, and the wiki article explains how surfaces can be charged by being placed into an electric field.

Is there any scientific evidence/measurements/observations of the outer Solar System being negatively charged, and the inner Solar System (including the Sun) being positively charged?

That's the story the EU theory keeps pushing out, but I haven't seen anything to support it. Nothing to support that the Sun is a glow discharge of a galactic electric current. Nothing to support anything it says, apart from morphological similarities.

The solar wind is observed to accelerate the further away from the Sun it gets.

This is a good indication that there is an electric field present that is responsible for accelerating the particles.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

No some people are unable to watch videos do to data limits and so forth you failling to explain content in the video shows lack of understanding of the material you say is proof of a theory are there any credible sources that contain the same information like science journals?

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Please explain why accelerting solar wind is an indication of an electric field.

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

No some people are unable to watch videos do to data limits and so forth you failling to explain content in the video shows lack of understanding of the material you say is proof of a theory are there any credible sources that contain the same information like science journals?

That's not my problem. I'm not your research assistant.

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Please explain why accelerting solar wind is an indication of an electric field.

The solar wind is composed of charged particles. The fact these particles increase in speed the further away they are from the Sun indicates there is an electric field present.

We use electric fields to accelerate particles here on Earth, and nature does it the same way.

More detail on this subject by an electrical engineering professor:

electric-cosmos.org...

The Sun produces an electromagnetic field.

Solar Wind Energy Source Discovered

originally posted by: wildespace
The Sun produces an electromagnetic field.

Solar Wind Energy Source Discovered

Yeah, Professor Scott addresses the points made in that article in the paper I linked.

It turns out the Wind probe never actually approached the area where solar wind acceleration occurs. It also turns out that a 2010 paper had already explained why ion cyclotron theory can't account for the observations.