The “Surprisingly” Dark Comet Chury

I presume Churry was found by accident as its too dark to reflect light? I am presuming this as I understand that out in space only items reflecting sunlight can be seen? which is why dark matter is so elusive?

originally posted by: pikestaff
I presume Churry was found by accident as its too dark to reflect light? I am presuming this as I understand that out in space only items reflecting sunlight can be seen? which is why dark matter is so elusive?

All objects reflect light (apart from black holes, obviously). Most of asteroids are coal-black, but still reflect enough of sunlight to be found in telescope images. Comets are discovered by their coma, which is a tenuous cloud of gasses around the nucleus, and again reflects enough light to be visible.

originally posted by: pikestaff
I presume Churry was found by accident as its too dark to reflect light? I am presuming this as I understand that out in space only items reflecting sunlight can be seen? which is why dark matter is so elusive?

It reflects light. UV light is what it is "dark" to. OP simply did not read and cherry picked quotes to support his beliefs regardless of whether they were factually true.

originally posted by: wildespace
Lots of confident statements there, but what data are those statements based on?

I base my claims on the Tempel1 data.

Just like comet Chury, Tempel1 has a mass so low that it should float in water.

The Deep Impact mission to Tempel1 returned impact data consistent with a solid chunk of hardened rock, not a melting snowball. The impact barely left a scratch in the comet's surface, yet the mass of the comet suggested it was less dense than a cheese ball. If the comet was made out of a loose aggregate of dust, the massive impact event should have left an enormous crater.

Further, the results of the impact indicate that Tempel1 does not have a hollow interior filled with ice. To quote the scientists:

"It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher," said SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). "The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven't materialized, at least not yet."
...
"Theories about the volatile layers below the surface of short-period comets are going to have to be revised," Qi said.

The impact did not leave an enormous crater, but it was preceded by a double-flash prior to the gigantic explosion that was far more energetic than scientists had predicted. The impactor's cameras also shorted out just before impact. The double flash and massive explosion were from the electrical contribution of the comet, which was PREDICTED ahead of time by Wal Thornhill based on the EU model of comets.

Tempel1 showed us that comets are solid pieces of rock, regardless of how much they weigh.

Here's the impact:


Here's the crater (if you can call it that):


A three kilometer wide fireball leaves barely a scratch.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
It reflects light. UV light is what it is "dark" to. OP simply did not read and cherry picked quotes to support his beliefs regardless of whether they were factually true.

That's a lie and you know it.

You know full well what the optical albedo is.

www.dlr.de...

"0.04 (very low, darker than coal)."

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalistIf the comet was made out of a loose aggregate of dust, the massive impact event should have left an enormous crater.

What maths prove that? Or are you just talking out of your ....

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

descanso.jpl.nasa.gov...

The impactor delivered 19 gigajoules of kinetic energy (equivalent to 4.8 tons of TNT) to excavate the crater. This kinetic energy was generated not by a chemical explosion but by the combination of the mass of the impactor (~370 kg) and its velocity when it impacted (~10.2 km/s).

Wiki notes:

Initial results were surprising as the material excavated by the impact contained more dust and less ice than had been expected. The only models of cometary structure astronomers could positively rule out were the very porous ones which had comets as loose aggregates of material.

A paper on the impact notes:

The formation of a high-angle plume matched a pre-encounter scenario: a nucleus covered by fine-grained, under-dense, and highly compressible particulates (Schultz et al., 2005).
...
Although SdN images did not reveal a large, deep crater, there are four explanations. First, the crater was small due to unique properties of the surface of the nucleus (e.g., Housen et al., 1999). Second, the crater collapsed soon after formation due to the deep penetration by the DI probe. Third, localized mass wasting (e.g., localized venting and wall collapse) destroyed the final crater after 5.5 years. Fourth, the crater is a nested crater, i.e., a small central crater surrounded by a broad but shallow-rimmed excavated zone. These alternatives are considered in more detail below.

The most straightforward explanation is that the DI collision produced only a small crater, but this interpretation is inconsistent with Earth-based and space-based telescopic observations following the impact, as well as observations from the DI spacecraft throughout approach. Earth- and space-based telescopes estimated that 8 x10^6 kg of dust and ice was ejected from the impact.

Such observations refer only to materials that left the gravity field completely, not the fraction that returned to the surface as represented by the ejecta curtain observed by the DI flyby. Inclusion of the unobserved near-rim increase the total amount of material excavated by the impact factor 3–10 greater than estimates from telescopic observations. Consequently, a crater 50 m in diameter would have ejected only a fraction of the observed mass ejected by the DI collision, after correction for material returning to the surface.

And since the standard model says this simply can't be so, they look to their make-believe alternative scenarios that involve "gravity" refilling the crater, which is a laughable joke when walking speed is enough to leave the comet's gravitational field, let alone impact ejecta traveling at hyper-sonic speeds. A refilling of the crater is impossible, and it doesn't look like a collapsed crater either.

Bottom line: they hit a rock, so they can't understand why the crater size doesn't match the observed explosion of material.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

So your source is wiki .. which someone wrote .. with no source on wiki to support it, and a paper which details several ways that what you claim is impossible can in fact happen.

So wiki says it can't be .. and the paper says it can be, but as always, you cherry pick one part you like and ignore the rest.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

My source isn't wiki, my source is an image of no crater after a massive explosion that has left NASA scratching their heads.

All we have, and all NASA has, are the images.

NASA offers several different interpretations, one of which agrees with my interpretation.

They dismiss the most obvious and simple interpretation because their view of the universe doesn't allow for it, and they even say as much.

While this one piece of evidence does not conclusively prove my case, it is one more massive strike against the standard model of comets, along with the massive list presented in the electric comet video.

-Pitch black, darker than asphalt.
-Disproportionate amount of hydrogen to OH
-Lack of observable vent sources
-Sensor whiteout along ridges and mesas
-Crater wall erosion
-Lack of observed volatiles beneath the surface
-Double flash from impact
-Recurring twin lobe shapes
-Presence of minerals that could only form in water along with minerals that could only form at extreme temperatures together in dust samples
-Brightening at distances too far to be attributed to sublimation
-Jets occurring on the dark sides of comet nuclei
-The inexplicable confinement of these jets into narrow filaments, spanning great distances, up to MILLIONS of miles, defying the behavior of neutral gases in a vacuum.
-Highly energetic supersonic jets exploding from comets' nuclei.
-Comet surfaces with sharply carved relief
-Unexpectedly high temperatures and X-ray emissions from cometary comas.
-Dry surfaces devoid of ice
-Comets disintegrating many millions of miles from the Sun.
-Comets causing coronal mass ejections
-Comet dust particles more finely and evenly divided than is plausible for sublimating "dirty ices."
-Ejection of larger particles and "gravel" that was never anticipated under the idea that comets accreted from primordial clouds of ice, gas, and dust.
-The unexplained ability of a relatively minuscule comet nucleus to hold in place a highly spherical coma, up to millions of miles in diamater, against the force of the solar wind.
-Massive discharges of cyanide and other organic compounds.
-Comets with "disconnecting" tails.
-And lack of an impact crater on Tempel1

So yeah, Google "comet surprise" once and see what comes back.

Tell me it's a dirty snowball - because all that crap is what snowballs do.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

How many times do you have to be told it is not a 'snowball'? Nor a 'melting snowball'? And that no scientist supporting the standard model thinks this?

Hundreds apparently because you keep ignoring it and using to show how a 'snowball' couldn't be supported by the evidence. How can you engage in a serious debate if you won't even start with getting the facts right for both sides?

I wish the term had never been coined in the first place.....

a reply to: Flaunt

Google Scholar returns 935 results for the exact phrase "dirty snowball"

scholar.google.com...


"Sekanina, 1979 and Sekanina, 1988). Whipple's model of the comet is often described as a 'dirty snowball,'"

"Each time it moves through perihelion the dirty snowball nucleus loses mass and some frac- tion of this mass, that made up of dust particles more massive than about 10-9 g, "

" It is generally thought that the main component of a comet is a body (the nucleus) about 1 km in size, composed of a mixture of ices (water, carbon dioxide, ammonia) and dust; this is the 'dirty snowball' mixture first proposed by Whipple (1950). ..."

etc.. etc.. etc..


According to the standard model, a comet is essentially a dirty snowball. The dirty snowball model has been documented in nearly a thousand published papers.

I think you want me to stop using the term because you know it makes your beliefs look utterly foolish in light of the evidence I have presented.

How about you change your beliefs instead of me changing my clearly well documented vocabulary.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

In the quote you used 'Whipple's model of the comet is often described as a 'dirty snowball', you conveniently snipped the 'a nickname' bit off. It is not what it is officially. It's a 'layman's' nickname and one most people distance themselves from when engaging in serious debate.

Nice deflection, though.

Also from Wiki, seeing as you are fond of using it;

The solid, core structure of a comet is known as the nucleus. Cometary nuclei are composed of an amalgamation of rock, dust, water ice, and frozen gases such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and ammonia.[14] As such, they are popularly described as "dirty snowballs" after Fred Whipple's model.[15] However, some comets may have a higher dust content, leading them to be called "icy dirtballs".

The surface of the nucleus is generally dry, dusty or rocky, suggesting that the ices are hidden beneath a surface crust several metres thick.

source

a reply to: Flaunt

Oh well then! I guess I better change it up to Icy Dirtball! Wiki has spoken! You guys were just mocking me for using a wiki reference earlier, even though I supported it with several papers. Not to mention I just referenced over 900 papers using the term dirty snowball, some of which were published this year.


Icy dirtball, dirty snowball, it's all the same crap theory to me.

Take away the ice and the theory falls apart.

Ice is responsible for the million mile wide coma.

Ice is responsible for the million mile long collimated tails.

Ice is ultimately responsible for the observed x-ray emission.

Ice is ultimately responsible for the outbursts of cyanide.

Ice is ultimately responsible for the disconnecting tails.

Ice is ultimately responsible for everything in the standard model.

It's a joke.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Wow, that was insightful. Thank you. Yes, you were mocked for using Wiki, which is why I used it. I kind of implied it in my post.

Not everything is ice btw. Frozen volatiles. Bit of a difference. Nice tirade though. Showed me, didn't it.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I think I'm done here because arguing with you is utterly pointless and I don't think I can add to what has already been said to you.

I will say this though. Science is about discovery and your occasional implications that scientist are, essentially, frauds and/or thick as anything is, frankly, abhorrent and disgusting. The joy of science if finding new things, new ways of seeing things and yes, having preconceived ideas turned on their heads.

I, and no doubt many , many others, would embrace EU with open arms if there was any part of it that truly stood up to rigorous testing, answered every question and completely and comprehensively overshadowed the standard model (which in itself is constantly being refined and tweaked).

Now, can you truly say the same?

Take care.

a reply to: Flaunt

I love your commentary.

As if the standard model has stood up to rigorous testing.

Do you think x-rays from ice balls has been tested in a lab?

Do you think the assumed sublimation rates have been tested in a lab?

Do you think the production of collimated comet tails via sublimation has been tested in a lab?

Do you think the recurring twin lobe shape of comets has been tested in a lab?

What part of the standard model of comets do you think has been tested in a lab?

Name one thing.

One thing.

Because for each of those things I listed, plasma physicists HAVE tested them in a lab. The EU model is the only model that can claim to have laboratory testing behind it.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Flaunt

Electricity is responsible for the million mile wide coma.

Electricity is responsible for the million mile long collimated tails.

Electricity is ultimately responsible for the observed x-ray emission.

Electricity is ultimately responsible for the outbursts of cyanide.

Electricity is ultimately responsible for the disconnecting tails.

Electricity is ultimately responsible for everything in the EU model.

It's a joke.

Fixed it for you.

~~~

@Flaunt, debating with EU supporters is an exercise in face-palming and beating your head against the wall; it never leads anywhere. Because they have such a simplistic view on how the universe works (i.e. "electricity did it"), they are not able to have anything other than the simplistic "dirty snowball" view of the standard comet model.

Never minds that a comet is a complex, evolving object that interacts with the solar wind and cosmic radiation. Never mind that the standard model already includes dark and dry surface, as well as some electric interaction. The EU is all about vilifying the mainstream science and raising itself to the status of the holy grail.

~~~

P.S. you can't test the universe in a lab.

a reply to: wildespace

Whether the comet is a rock, an icy dirtball or a dirty snowball - explain to me how such an object could emit x-rays simply because it's in space getting hit by the solar wind.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Flaunt

The EU model is the only model that can claim to have laboratory testing behind it.

Oh good lord....

So I suppose that experimental physicists spend all day eating donuts and drinking coffee then? They do not actually experiment in the lab with things relating to the standard model?

I guess we should be outraged then, because that means CERN is a big fake, hmmm?

The EU model is a joke. It carried on by those who somehow want to establish themselves as different and that everyone else in the world is wrong, while they are right.

Wildespace is right: There is no discussion with EU people. There is only failed predictions (I still get chuckles over ISON), many, many, many excuses, or: they go completely quiet when the things they predict do not happen.

Arguing with them is: an exercise in futility.

However: you need to stop LYING. Standard model physics has been experimented with in labs for going on a couple of centuries now.

a reply to: eriktheawful

hahaha I love this place.

If the comet is gigantic icy rock that emits a gigantic coma and tail, along with x-rays, why doesn't the Earth do the same thing?

We have polar caps, right?

The Earth emits neutral atoms into space, right?

So according to the standard model, if we launched an iceberg into space, it would emit x-rays, right?

Also, if comets are emitting neutral atoms all the time, why do they only emit x-rays some of the time, rather than all of the time?

Why don't all comets emit x-rays all of the time?