The “Surprisingly” Dark Comet Chury

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

The problem with your pumice argument is that the Stardust mission returned evidence of:

-the comet contained a sizeable amount of solid material that is much larger than interstellar grains.

-We find spectacular silicate crystals in the comet.

-The comet samples collected by Stardust contain abundant crystalline minerals and in most cases it is clear that they did not form by the predicted mild heating of interstellar dust. Many are too large, and have complex mineralogical and chemical compositions that could not have formed by this process.

-The comet is very odd mix of materials that formed at the highest and lowest temperatures that existed in the early solar system.

stardust.jpl.nasa.gov...


and on and on.

None of the findings support the idea of pumice being the primary constituent of comets.

The fact that the comet dust from the Stardust mission contained minerals that could ONLY form in the presence of LIQUID water along with minerals that could ONLY form in the ABSENCE of liquid water at extremely high temperatures, again indicates that comets are the product of an electric discharge. There is no other coherent way to explain the findings.

ESA senior science advisor Mark McCaughrean remarks that 67P does not appear to be two comets that came together, now that they have a closer look at it. This observation appears near the end of a 6 & 1/2 minute audio interview. The interview is linked at the bottom of the Voice of America text article, which itself was linked to in the original post.
The ready alternatives to a contact binary explanation for the comets two lobes are given by McCaughrean as:
1.) Selective erosion of the middle part of the comet by solar heating and sublimation of volatile ices.
2.) Impacts by other objects, which presumably knocked away much of the material between the two lobes of the comet. The latter sees less probable, as impacts sizable enough to remove so much material also seem likely to have shattered such a low density, fragile object.

a reply to: Ross 54

Yeah, they are left with erosion as the only way to explain it. The problem is that this same shape has been observed on over 50% of the comet nucleus that we've directly imaged.

Erosion might be able to explain one observation by chance, but not over 50% of them.

Tempel1 – round
Hartley – lobed
Borrelly – lobed
Lovejoy – oblong
Halley – lobed
Wild2 – round
Chury – lobed

This same twin lobed shape was created by discharge experiments into dirt:



I doubt this is a coincidence.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

The problem with your pumice argument is that the Stardust mission returned evidence of:

-the comet contained a sizeable amount of solid material that is much larger than interstellar grains.

-We find spectacular silicate crystals in the comet.

-The comet samples collected by Stardust contain abundant crystalline minerals and in most cases it is clear that they did not form by the predicted mild heating of interstellar dust. Many are too large, and have complex mineralogical and chemical compositions that could not have formed by this process.

-The comet is very odd mix of materials that formed at the highest and lowest temperatures that existed in the early solar system.

stardust.jpl.nasa.gov...


and on and on.

None of the findings support the idea of pumice being the primary constituent of comets.

The fact that the comet dust from the Stardust mission contained minerals that could ONLY form in the presence of LIQUID water along with minerals that could ONLY form in the ABSENCE of liquid water at extremely high temperatures, again indicates that comets are the product of an electric discharge. There is no other coherent way to explain the findings.

The presence of glasses and crystalline minerals are not mutually exclusive. The observations are not in yet, but there is no model besides a gas-infused, heat forged, rapidly cooled rock form. There is only one mineral morphology that explains the low density. Not ice, not rock, not dust. The radar should bounce off the surface but I expect the return energy will show surprising level of absorption. Pumice floats.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: wildespace
The surface is darker than coal, probably indicating it's fried by something.

Yes, by solar radiation.

The density is lower than water. There is a mineral morphology that explains all this. Pumice. I said it and I'll say it again for the record, PUMICE.

Can pumice release jets visible in Rosetta images? Can it create a coma and ion tail?

Using the selective erosion scenario to explain the extremely lobed shape of comet 67P C G seems rather ad hoc. The usual current description of a comet nuclei is of a loosely consolidated heap of ice chunks, with silicate and carbonaceous grains in between, and a carbonaceous crust, over all.
This does not seem to allow for substantial volumes of volatile materials in one part of the interior of a comet, and their exclusion in others. How then was the 'neck' region of the comet selectively volatilized?

Bothered by the comment of Chury floating due to it's apparent mass. Mass has nothing to do with whether something floats or not, it's all about density. Same reason Saturn would float given a big enough ocean (though I believe an ocean that big would simply be a star)

originally posted by: SpongeBeard
Bothered by the comment of Chury floating due to it's apparent mass. Mass has nothing to do with whether something floats or not, it's all about density. Same reason Saturn would float given a big enough ocean (though I believe an ocean that big would simply be a star)

Chury's dimensions (and therefore its approximate volume) are known, thus knowing its mass gives us its density. Chury's mass will be determined more accurately as Rosetta gets closer and closer, so hopefully we'll get an even more accurate density.

a reply to: SpongeBeard

The mass I used was really density, it was mass per area.

Most asteroids are between 2-7 g/cm3. Rosetta is 0.3g/cm3.

The EU model states there are no differences in the densities between asteroids and comets. This mission has already proved that false.

My prediction, is that EU theorists will be doing a lot of backtracking, and that no matter what is found, they will claim it supports their theory.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Wolf! Wolf!

Getting nervous, AC? Only a few days to go now...

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
The comet is pitch black, darker than charcoal, and no ice has been detected on its surface.

From what I understand of that article it looks black in the ultraviolet, meaning that it reflects very little ultraviolet light.

Or did I miss something?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
The comet is pitch black, darker than charcoal, and no ice has been detected on its surface.

From what I understand of that article it looks black in the ultraviolet, meaning that it reflects very little ultraviolet light.

Or did I miss something?

You did not. As I pointed out earlier he cherry picks quotes to mislead people.

From these data, the Alice team discovered that the comet is unusually dark at ultraviolet wavelengths

www.swri.org...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Unless I'm mistaken, ice is good at reflecting UV light. Besides, Chury had been known to be a dark object from earlier temperature measurements (it was found to be comparatively warm).

www.universetoday.com...

a reply to: wildespace

Yes, the surface is not covered in ice, but that was not at all unexpected.

Cool thread OP fascinating discovery..

I say all comets are left overs of the exploded planet Tiamat (of which the asteroid belt is another part)

Just some food for thought..

Are there any bases/monoliths on this one??..hmmm..

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This is a question directed at both of you fine fellows, asked in layman's terms.

If water is found and ice jets are produce will you concede OP?

If no water is found and there are no ice jets will you concede Razor ?

originally posted by: CitizenJack
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This is a question directed at both of you fine fellows, asked in layman's terms.

If water is found and ice jets are produce will you concede OP?

If no water is found and there are no ice jets will you concede Razor ?

Common mistake. It does not have to be water ice, just volatiles. If no volatile material is found then clearly something is wrong with our understanding.

That is the difference between science and what he does. He claims EVERY shape proves EU. He claims EVERY density proves EU. He claims EVERY option of volatiles or no volatiles will prove EU. He has claimed the Rosetta mission will bounce off the comet because it's solid rock .. but if it doesn't that's ok EU is still right. Basically every single scenario leads to EU being right.

You can look in this thread, the first thing he did was claim the data on density was wrong. Why? Because it does not match EU theory. Then he realized the density data will most likely be proven, so he switched it to the data may be right but even if the data says it's low density it's really high density and EU explains why it's high density with low density readings.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I didn't switch anything.

The density is "wrong" because it's obviously solid rock, the mass is accurate.

The comet is not hollow, the comet is not made out of pumice, the comet is not made out of cork, the comet is gigantic boulder just as solid as a mountain. It's made out of solid silicates just like the Stardust mission collected from Wild2. It's made out of exactly the same stuff.

The standard model does not allow for an ultra-light weight object to be as dense as solid stone.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I didn't switch anything.

The density is "wrong" because it's obviously solid rock, the mass is accurate.

The comet is not hollow, the comet is not made out of pumice, the comet is not made out of cork, the comet is gigantic boulder just as solid as a mountain. It's made out of solid silicates just like the Stardust mission collected from Wild2. It's made out of exactly the same stuff.

The standard model does not allow for an ultra-light weight object to be as dense as solid stone.

The standard model is what determined the density. It's the EU model that does not allow for the comet to have a low density.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
it's obviously solid rock, the mass is accurate.

The comet is not hollow, the comet is not made out of pumice, the comet is not made out of cork, the comet is gigantic boulder just as solid as a mountain. It's made out of solid silicates.

Lots of confident statements there, but what data are those statements based on?

Data that we do have shows very low mass (and therefore very low density, given the comet's size), yet you claim that the comet is solid rock and that its low gravity is due to some unproven electrical effects. With plenty of the actual science being done and data being gathered in this mission, why should we agree with your hypothesis to the exclusion of that data? Has science ever observed a solid rocky body that has ubnormally low gravity?