'Welease Wosetta!'

[Metryq]

Yet no causal mechanism is ever given for such a far-fetched claim.

Like Guth's inflation—the reason for the far-fetched claim is to "preserve the phenomenon," to maintain the established model. The universe expands only outside galaxies, and planets are not ejected to the Oort cloud as that sort of "just because" discrimination is needed to preserve the status quo.

The epicycle factory must be working overtime.

[viscount aero]

Yet no causal mechanism is ever given for such a far-fetched claim.

Like Guth's inflation—the reason for the far-fetched claim is to "preserve the phenomenon," to maintain the established model. The universe expands only outside galaxies, and planets are not ejected to the Oort cloud as that sort of "just because" discrimination is needed to preserve the status quo.

The epicycle factory must be working overtime.

Great Scott! I think you may be onto something! To "preserve the phenomenon"

When you begin to actually dissect press releases given out by establishment astronomy and cosmology then the reader begins to discover that many of the claims alleged cannot possibly be real or actual. What seduces the general reader, however, are the expert (but thinly veiled) uses of double-speak and obscure locution and grammar that in actuality means absolutely nothing.

For example, wouldn't you imagine, too, that if such a giant event, the cause, were to have ejected all of the comets formed near or at the Sun to at least 1 light year away that it would have affected the entire solar system, including everything in it? Why is this never explored with seriousness or questioned?

[Metryq]

wouldn't you imagine, too, that if such a giant event, the cause, were to have ejected all of the comets formed near or at the Sun to at least 1 light year away that it would have affected the entire solar system, including everything in it?

Such questions do not "Bode" well for the positions of the planets.

Besides, scientists never "guess." Everything they say is fact, and they're too smart to be wrong. (Unless they're mavericks who disagree with the mainstream. In which case they are unquestionably wrong, no debate or experiments needed.)

[viscount aero]

Yes exactly.

[seb]

Yes they presumed, in absolute terms, that they would be anchoring to ice. That was never questioned and the harpoon was designed for it. Yet 7 cms? That is barely 2 1/2 inches deep! When you anchor a tent into the ground when camping you must go at least 6 to 8 inches. So I don't understand their rationale whatsoever especially since escape velocity is below human walking speed. If they were to bump or bounce off the surface with the harpoon then the lander could possibly drift out into space. How would anchoring something that shallow be adequate under any circumstances? What if they only hit powder that extends down for several inches, talcum-like dirt that has no anchoring traits like on the Moon?

They could have designed a lander with a rocket engine whose skyward-directed thrust could burn for several minutes, or even hours, holding the lander to the surface while a long anchoring drill bit drilled into the cometary body for several feet. This way the lander would never drift off the surface due to minor bumps or unforeseen variables.

Despite their myopia I hope the lander is successful. The data will be highly valuable.

A lander like that would have been a good idea. To be fair to the ESA, their current design looks flawed in hindsight but it was launched 10 years ago and had to be designed and signed-off long before then, before they had good close-ups of comets. Even if anyone suspected in the 90s that the comet would be solid rock, could they argue for extra engineering costs in the absence of good evidence contrary to the textbooks? Similarly, if anyone had suggested a safe-guard against electrical discharge on landing, would they have been listend to?

The design of the space-craft is testament to the dirty-iceball theory that was and is prevailing. If this mission leads to the conclusion that comets are not icy then it be hard for them to pretend that their theories still fit.

On the other hand, if it does directly find a lot of ice or water in the comet then it will be difficult for the electrical theory to be maintained.

[viscount aero]

You are correct.

[dodeca]

no ice.

From data collected over the last month, the Alice team discovered that the comet is unusually dark in the ultraviolet and that the comet’s surface – so far – shows no large water-ice patches. Alice is also already detecting both hydrogen and oxygen in the comet’s coma, or atmosphere.

“We’re a bit surprised at just how unreflective the comet’s surface is and how little evidence of exposed water-ice it shows,” says Dr. Alan Stern, Alice principal investigator and an associate vice president of the SwRI Space Science and Engineering Division.

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/09/05 ... et-67pc-g/

[Rossim]

I can only imagine the bewilderment when they observed oxygen and hydrogen in the coma (supposed to be produced by water photodissociation) followed by zero water ice on the surface.

[starbiter]

I'm actually more interested in hydrocarbons in the coma. I'm predicting copious amounts of oil. The same process that converts rock to hydroxyl using hydrogen ions is probably responsible for the hydrocarbons in most in not all of the comets studied to date. I'm not sure of the initial source of the carbon, but hydrogen is available through the solar wind, according to my EU understanding.

This would jibe with eyewitness accounts of oil raining from the sky for days and nights while there was a fire breathing dragon in the sky.

michael

[nick c]

...and that the comet’s surface – so far – shows no large water-ice patches.

Of course, this is going to be interpreted as 'proof' that the water is in the comet interior!

[Aardwolf]

I wonder if they are going to explain where the 2 gas jets they are photographing are coming from?

[viscount aero]

no ice.

From data collected over the last month, the Alice team discovered that the comet is unusually dark in the ultraviolet and that the comet’s surface – so far – shows no large water-ice patches. Alice is also already detecting both hydrogen and oxygen in the comet’s coma, or atmosphere.

“We’re a bit surprised at just how unreflective the comet’s surface is and how little evidence of exposed water-ice it shows,” says Dr. Alan Stern, Alice principal investigator and an associate vice president of the SwRI Space Science and Engineering Division.

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/09/05 ... et-67pc-g/

All of their nightmares are going to come true: no ice

But they're not giving up The article has the fragrance of "but we're still going to insist that dark matter [ice] is there, subsurface, because Alice is already detecting both hydrogen and oxygen in the comet’s coma, or atmosphere." Alice is chasing the White Rabbit

But they have amnesia from Deep Impact/Tempel 1. Little to no ice was found at that comet either. So why are they so surprised?

Oh, I know why they are surprised: They don't want to actually think about the meaning of direct observation. They can't rely on direct observations anymore actually! Direct observation is no longer a viable means of data collection in astronomy! If they did rely on direct data then they would have to realize that there is no ice on, or even beneath, the surface.

If their coveted so-called dirty snowball theory is correct [which they still assume is true], ergo, that solar heating allegedly causes water ice to sublimate from the comet's surface into the vacuum of space--then how can most of the water be coming from inside the comet if it must sublimate from the surface? Answer: It can't be!
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/first-evi ... s-it-mean/

They're ice screwed!

[Metryq]

The ice not only sublimates—jumps from solid to gas without passing through the liquid (or EZ) phase—it teleports from the cometary interior to some distance above the nucleus without passing through the space in between. Rosetta is just too close to see it. Cosmic silly string is forming a dark wormhole through 12-dimensional hyperspace filled with paradoxicon flavored neutrinos.

[viscount aero]

The ice not only sublimates—jumps from solid to gas without passing through the liquid (or EZ) phase—it teleports from the cometary interior to some distance above the nucleus without passing through the space in between. Rosetta is just too close to see it. Cosmic silly string is forming a dark wormhole through 12-dimensional hyperspace filled with paradoxicon flavored neutrinos.

Yes of course! That will be forthcoming in subsequent PRs! You jumped the gun!

[Metryq]

“We’re a bit surprised at just how unreflective the comet’s surface is and how little evidence of exposed water-ice it shows,” says Dr. Alan Stern, Alice principal investigator and an associate vice president of the SwRI Space Science and Engineering Division.

I like the way the statement is spun: "how little evidence of exposed water-ice," meaning no evidence at all. By phrasing it this way, the report suggests that some water-ice has been found. So astronomers aren't utterly baffled and mystified. Nothing to see here. Move along.

("We really have to step up our efforts against those darn EU hooligans! Time to go full Velikovsky on them!" Look after Mr. Bond. See that some harm comes to him.)