Why Hasn't Rosetta Made the Electric Comet Obvious Yet?

[castrogiovanni]

Fair play to Ross/ Rossim who started this thread; I've crossed swords with him on a number of forums, under various names. However, he was smart enough to see this one coming. I haven't seen him post anywhere else in a long while. That's what happens when you lie to people. They get hacked off.

[Zyxzevn]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3513001966

It says "Modeling".
That means that they try to define a model in which there is water coming from the comet.
After this the other scientists will test this model, and see how well it works in reality.

Let me pick a piece from the beginning:
They start with the following model:
"Indeed, CO2 is the primary driver of activity by dragging out chunks of pure ice out of the nucleus from the sub-solar lobe that appear to be the main source of water in Hartley 2’s coma by sublimating slowly as they go away from the nucleus."
This is even worse.
They think that CO2, which normally reacts with H from the sun, and produces water with an electrochemical reaction, does something completely else.
It "drags out" water (of pure ice) from the comet.
This reads more like a fantasy.
But because they "are certain" that the comet is filled with ice, they invented a process
to "push" the water out using CO2.

According to the paper: this model is not enough, because it does not fit the observations.

So instead they add a model that may produce a different spreading of H2O.

"We use the fully kinetic Direct Simulation Monte Carlo model of Tenishev et a"
That means that they use random numbers to verify their model.
Let's go further:
"The different gas production rates from each area were found by fitting the spectra computed using a line-by-line non-LTE radiative transfer model to the HRI observations."
They adapt the parameters in such a way that it comes close to the HRI observations.

So what they did is:
They know that the normal model is not working.
They solve the problem by splitting up the model in very small parts.
And add invisible parameters that start randomized, but are modified until it approaches
the observed differences.

Let me explain the logic that they use in a simpler way:
I have a field with grass, and some bushes.
But I believe that it is a forest.
So I forget about the grass. I zoom in on the bushes.
And when I am close enough to the bushes, they look just
like large trees.
So I can conclude that it can still be a forest, it is just on a different scale.

[castrogiovanni]

Have you ever thought that the so called "ion sparks" are actually ice?

The scientists involved are saying that it is dust, not ice.
That is exactly the point I am making. They make it look like ice, but it isn't.

The only ice that has been found was a very small patch, which might have come from anywhere.
The most likely place where ice comes from, is the water produced by the electrochemical processes.

The idea is that comets come from an Oort cloud filled with the lighter elements, like hydrogen and oxygen.
So according to the mainstream, they may not contain any heavy materials.
Instead we do not see any Oort cloud. Nor do we it see from the spectral analyses of the comets.

The Rosetta mission was designed to study the snow on the comet. They did not find it.
They could not land on it, because the ground was to hard. Because it was not snow.
Near the sun, the comet should become vapor, causing a tail, leaving only a small nucleus.
But even after visiting the sun, the comet still looks roughly the same.
There are no real geysers either. Geysers come from small holes in the ground.
We don't see them either.

But it looks like a rock, it behaves like a rock.
It seems to cause a tail due to the electrochemical processes.
So maybe it really is a rock?

No, mate. You obviously don't bother reading the papers that have been released about this mission, and others. They have "discovered" ice on the surface, below the surface, in the coma (at 103P), and its sublimation products in the coma. What more would you like? A bloody map? How much more evidence do you need to realise that certain people haven't got a clue what they are talking about, when it comes to comets? Or that they are just selling a story?
Give it up. It's a con.

[castrogiovanni]

Would you like me to quote Thornhill & Talbott's take on comets prior to this mission? Despite it all having been previously shown to be utter nonsense? Please don't make me dig that rubbish out again.

[Zyxzevn]

Yep. Remind me what the usual density of rock is. And then have a look at what the measured density of comets is.
Is it likely? Errrr, no.

The density is not the issue here now.
It could be "Lithium oxide"?
I am still looking for a full spectrum analysis of the surface.
But sadly it seems to have failed due to the failed landing.

The mainstream does not even say it is ice,
as they only found a small patch (which they were very happy about).
They hope that the inside is made of ice.
But it could be anything of course.
It could be hollow, like volcanic stone.
Or it could contain lighter materials.
It can be carbon, because it is very dark.
Or Lithium oxide because of its proposed density.
Or they just assumed it was similar to snow, and did not really measured it well.

The way the mainstream is working, I fear the last option is the most likely.

[castrogiovanni]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3513001966

It says "Modeling".
That means that they try to define a model in which there is water coming from the comet.
After this the other scientists will test this model, and see how well it works in reality.

Let me pick a piece from the beginning:
They start with the following model:
"Indeed, CO2 is the primary driver of activity by dragging out chunks of pure ice out of the nucleus from the sub-solar lobe that appear to be the main source of water in Hartley 2’s coma by sublimating slowly as they go away from the nucleus."
This is even worse.
They think that CO2, which normally reacts with H from the sun, and produces water with an electrochemical reaction, does something completely else.

No, you obviously haven't read the paper. Eh?
It "drags out" water (of pure ice) from the comet.
This reads more like a fantasy.
But because they "are certain" that the comet is filled with ice, they invented a process
to "push" the water out using CO2.

According to the paper: this model is not enough, because it does not fit the observations.

So instead they add a model that may produce a different spreading of H2O.

"We use the fully kinetic Direct Simulation Monte Carlo model of Tenishev et a"
That means that they use random numbers to verify their model.
Let's go further:
"The different gas production rates from each area were found by fitting the spectra computed using a line-by-line non-LTE radiative transfer model to the HRI observations."
They adapt the parameters in such a way that it comes close to the HRI observations.

So what they did is:
They know that the normal model is not working.
They solve the problem by splitting up the model in very small parts.
And add invisible parameters that start randomized, but are modified until it approaches
the observed differences.

Let me explain the logic that they use in a simpler way:
I have a field with grass, and some bushes.
But I believe that it is a forest.
So I forget about the grass. I zoom in on the bushes.
And when I am close enough to the bushes, they look just
like large trees.
So I can conclude that it can still be a forest, it is just on a different scale.

Wrong. The "modelling" was based on actual measurements made at the comet. That is, they know the temperatures of the active regions; they know the make up of the jets (i.e. CO2); and they know that the solid objects entrained within that CO2 was H2O ice. Have known for a long time. Surprisingly didn't get reported on here.

[castrogiovanni]

Yep. Remind me what the usual density of rock is. And then have a look at what the measured density of comets is.
Is it likely? Errrr, no.

The density is not the issue here now.
It could be "Lithium oxide"?
I am still looking for a full spectrum analysis of the surface.
But sadly it seems to have failed due to the failed landing.

The mainstream does not even say it is ice,
as they only found a small patch (which they were very happy about).
They hope that the inside is made of ice.
But it could be anything of course.
It could be hollow, like volcanic stone.
Or it could contain lighter materials.
It can be carbon, because it is very dark.
Or Lithium oxide because of its proposed density.
Or they just assumed it was similar to snow, and did not really measured it well.

The way the mainstream is working, I fear the last option is the most likely.

Lithium oxide? Jesus. You guys really are struggling aren't you? Did you not bother with the CONSERT data? Or do you need Wal to tell you how to think? In case you haven't noticed, he has not managed to get a single thing right about comets. Ever. Nor has dear old Dave. Nothing. Nada.
And don't make me link to a post of Dave's on ISF where he makes predictions for this mission; it doesn't make good reading. If you believe in this nonsense, of course.

[Zyxzevn]

Wow they really found ice on the comet:
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/01/13 ... -as-water/

Look there in the corner..
Zoom in..

A bit more..

There..

You still can't see it?

I put arrows on the picture, so you can see it better..

[castrogiovanni]

I'll repeat: Detection of Water Vapor in Halley's Comet: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/17773501
In 1986. They saw it from the KAO, and they saw it with Vega. It would take far too long to list every damn comet where they detected it between then and the start of the Rosetta mission. It was common knowledge. From vibrational bands. Indisputable. Look up the vibrational bands of H2O. Something Wal obviously didn't do. Why? Because he wouldn't know a comet from an asteroid. As he continually makes plain.

[castrogiovanni]

Wow they really found ice on the comet:
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/01/13 ... -as-water/

Look there in the corner..
Zoom in..

A bit more..

There..

You still can't see it?

I put arrows on the picture, so you can see it better..

Sorry mate, you're just showing your ignorance now. What would you like to see? How many papers would you like me to link to where ice has been detected on, below and above the surface of comets? Perhaps, while I'm sorting that out (it is a long list), you could link to all the electrical gubbins that has been detected. Not inferred (i.e. ooooh that looks like x,y or z), but actual evidence. Shouldn't take long.

[castrogiovanni]

Wow they really found ice on the comet:
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/01/13 ... -as-water/

Look there in the corner..
Zoom in..

A bit more..

There..

You still can't see it?

I put arrows on the picture, so you can see it better..

Obviously Wal and all the other geniuses on here have never bothered to educate you about infrared detection of such species. Maybe you ought to learn about such things. yes? Paper is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 16190.html
If you can't access Nature, then you are in no position to lecture anybody about anything. I would suggest reading it. And understanding it. That might be harder.

[castrogiovanni]

For anyone that's interested, here is David Talbott's post on ISF: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=2441
Not going well, is it?

[Zyxzevn]

*****

But let me discuss this another way, because it is clear to me that you will not change your mind.
Somehow quite some anger appear in your posts.
Why are you going to personal attacks?

Which is unreasonable because we really want to discuss interesting information.

You are lucky that I am a also good in psychology.
Were your parents very religious?
Did you have to work hard to reach your level of education?
For you I would advice to take some rest and let the EU go for a while.

[GaryN]

castrogiovanni, what do you think of Doctor Anaribas presentation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSuVYN1nXx4

Here is a report on the LAP data from rosetta.

Spatial distribution of low-energy plasma around comet 67P/CG from Rosetta measurements
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream ... l53006.pdf

1. Introduction
Comets originate from the early formation of the solar system and consist to a large extent of volatile material,such as ice from H2O, CO, and CO2. The ice will eventually begin to sublimate due to heating by sunlight and produce gas, which expands around the comet and leads to the formation of a coma. The coma subsequently gets partly ionized and an ionosphere is formed in the inner coma. The extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) is the primary source of ionization but particle impact and charge exchange processes also contribute [Cravens et al., 1987;Nilsson et al., 2015a]

So from the beginning we have assumptions that the comet is composed mainly of ices. There are also other assumptions regarding the heat from the Sun at that distance, which is not actually directly measured, but based on the Solar constant model. Dr Anaribas model is perfectly valid as far as I can determine, but I'm not a specialist in this area, but do know that the principles he is suggesting are based on known and accepted science and used in commercial applications such as etching with electron beam generated plasmas. The eV energies required to initiate such processes are available at the comet, so why outright deny the possibility?

[Cargo]

Also important to note the exposure time, 12.5 Seconds. Which makes we think the ion sparks are barely moving in this charged vacuum close to the comet.

Have you ever thought that the so called "ion sparks" are actually ice?

Well.. hang on a second (or Twelve) here before you get all JFS Religious on me. Look at the picture and the length of the lines. And those lines are 12.5s long.. And 'if' they are 'ice', well, ice is not self-luminous, and this is in a very dark sun-shade zone of the Comet. So what makes them all so bright?