It would seam as if nothing, no amount of observation or measurement will falsify the dirty snowball nonsense.
It's obvious jonesdumb is blinded by his religious beliefs! Unexpected means "expected" and "challenges theoretical models" means confirmation! First we have Cap'n Stoopid, then da schnied being Major Stoopid, now we have General Stoopid, the Supreme Leader of the Stoopids in jonesdumb.
The bulk grain properties of comet C/2012 K1 (Pan-STARRS) are ***comparable*** to other NICs with weak 10 μm silicate features and ***similar*** in respect to coma grains seen in the small set of ecliptic-family comets (ECs) that have fragmented, explosively released subsurface materials, or have had materials excavated from depth.
Regarding our Sun, obviously that is true, but over geological timescales there have probably been thousands of close passes by other stars. It stands to reason that some of them must have passed close enough to render the Oort Cloud less than "pristine."
Huh? How is this unexpected?
Huh? How is this unexpected?
Ask the author of the article, I didn't write it. You should be directing your anger towards science journalists who seem to be out to lie about every thing they write about.
I have no doubt that passing stars occasionally disturb the Oort cloud.
Amusing!I have no doubt that passing stars occasionally disturb the Oort cloud.
But a stellar capture by a star such as our Sun is untenable by you, got it. What would prevent such an event?
"science journalists who seem to be out to lie about every thing they write about!"
"science journalists who seem to be out to lie about every thing they write about!"
Can we get any more inane? It is in fact jonesdumb who is claiming the journalists lie about this and that. I merely read the article and made statements about that which I read. Contrary to jonesdumb's claims, the dirty snowball has been a failure on numerous aspects. Simply applying ad hoc adjustments is not the way science advancements are made, sometimes falsification requires a restart.
Amusing!
I have no doubt that passing stars occasionally disturb the Oort cloud.
But a stellar capture by a star such as our Sun is untenable by you, got it. What would prevent such an event?
Capture of what?
Due to being scientifically impossible,
Nothing has been a failure,
Nothing has been a failure,
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/17/10/2C6A94F800000578-3238186-Comets_are_composed_of_frozen_gases_mixed_with_dust_giving_the_n-a-32_1442483569166.jpg
Nope, nothing at all. Expect the prediction of it appearance for one.
Due to being scientifically impossible,
So the photoelectric effect is "scientifically impossible" on comets? Photons cannot reach the surface of a comets? Silly!
Can you read? It's all there;
"But a ***stellar capture*** by a star ***such as*** our Sun..."
Electric discharge clearly seen on comets.LMFAO
https://youtu.be/zAbTTVxOhtU
Electric discharge clearly seen on comets.
https://youtu.be/zAbTTVxOhtU
Unexpectedly, these observations revealed weak silicate emission features from the comet, rather than the anticipated strong silicate features found in some prior Oort Cloud comet observations, including those of Comet Hale-Bopp and studies conducted with the Spitzer Space Telescope... This composition challenges existing theoretical models of how Oort cloud comets form.
It would seam as if nothing, no amount of observation or measurement will falsify the dirty snowball nonsense.
"science journalists who seem to be out to lie about every thing they write about!"
Can we get any more inane? It is in fact jonesdumb who is claiming the journalists lie about this and that. I merely read the article and made statements about that which I read. Contrary to jonesdumb's claims, the dirty snowball has been a failure on numerous aspects. Simply applying ad hoc adjustments is not the way science advancements are made, sometimes falsification requires a restart.
Due to being scientifically impossible,
So the photoelectric effect is "scientifically impossible" on comets? Photons cannot reach the surface of a comets? Silly!
Ya lost me at seam...
As if you would recognize an electric discharge if you saw it. The fact of the matter is the data shows a increase in brightness by a factor of ten.
And as is the M.O. of space scientists is to blame something "dark" or unseen to explain the event.
The evidence is there for anyone with an open mind to see. Rubbishing the hypothesis without even assessing the evidence presented is neither open minded or the scientific process.
Hence why it would need a gas that is under pressure below the surface. We know there is ice below the surface.
I'm still baffled about the EU rabids hearing thunder from across the vacuum of space during those invisible lightning discharges.
Hence why it would need a gas that is under pressure below the surface. We know there is ice below the surface.
Right, so this loose agglomeration of of ices and dust is capable of creating the high pressure needed for this explosive event. You're right that isn't rocket science, it's not science.
is hard sintered ice/ dust.
But I'll give you sintering but it is sintering of rock. And being immersed in plasma this is how it would work.
By comparison of arrival times at the individual feet, we estimate the propagation velocity of these Rayleigh waves to be at least 80 m/s. With the bulk density of 533 ± 6 kg/m3 as derived from tracking Rosetta (Pätzold et al., Nature, vol. 530, 2016), this velocity translates into a shear modulus of the comet material of at least 3.2 MPa. Shear modulus scales with velocity squared, so when taking into account the formal uncertainties arising from the arrival time inversion, the shear modulus may easily be as large as 10 MPa. This is still low compared to solid rock or monocrystalline ice, but is compatible with highly porous materials.
This is still low compared to solid rock or monocrystalline ice, but is compatible with highly porous materials.
Electric woo for Jones.
https://www.ncbi....5012123/
So you are now claiming that plasma spark discharge is the only way sintering can occur, @cantthink69?
Just so we have that clear.
I rather think CD is getting confused with the terminology, as usual.
I rather think CD is getting confused with the terminology, as usual.
It is yourself and the plasma ignoramuses which confuse the fact that we are discussing plasma phenomena here. The not electrically neutral comet is immersed in and interacting via plasma processes with the plasma of the solar wind. All the hypothetical beliefs regarding pressure and heat are meaningless without the consideration of the electrodynamic properties of the matter involved. jonesdumb is dramatically mistaken that his hypothetical electrically neutral guesses are valid.
I rather think CD is getting confused with the terminology, as usual.
It is yourself and the plasma ignoramuses which confuse the fact that we are discussing plasma phenomena here. The not electrically neutral comet is immersed in and interacting via plasma processes with the plasma of the solar wind. All the hypothetical beliefs regarding pressure and heat are meaningless without the consideration of the electrodynamic properties of the matter involved. jonesdumb is dramatically mistaken that his hypothetical electrically neutral guesses are valid.
...the Oort Cloud, a zone of icy objects enveloping the solar system.
How are scientists able to know that it is a comet's first pass through the inner solar system?From its orbit.
How are scientists able to know that it is a comet's first pass through the inner solar system?
From its orbit
How are scientists able to know that it is a comet's first pass through the inner solar system?
From its orbit
This is of course based on the assumption that orbit cannot change, which is a fairly silly assumption.
cantdrive85
Nov 10, 2017It would seam as if nothing, no amount of observation or measurement will falsify the dirty snowball nonsense.