I watched the video and it was better than I expected, but it still twists facts to promote the theory. One of the repeating themes in the video is that the comet isn't a dirty snowball, because we don't see water ice on the surface of comets. We don't see water ice on the surface because it's not on the surface, as the impact on Tempel 1 revealed.
Originally posted by vind21
Here is the new documentary released: The Electric Comet
(Use the link if the embed is not showing)
So this debunks the basic premise of electric comets, showing that water ice is present below the surface, contradicting the electric comet claim that there isn't water ice present.
From this distribution, we infer that water ice is depleted in the uppermost layer (∼1 m), but present in lower layers. This stratigraphy coupled with the high porosity inferred from numerous other observations of the impact event (A’Hearn et al., 2005; Richardson and Melosh, 2007; Schultz et al., 2007a) should produce water in the vapor plume, as is observed. Finally, the detection of water ice in low-speed, high-angle ejecta visible near the nucleus during look-back argues for the presence of water ice in the deepest ejecta originating from tens of meters into the comet’s interior. Water ice is therefore present throughout the interior 10 to 20 m of Tempel 1, with the noted exception of the uppermost strata.
"Since the visible images have a higher spatial resolution, we use those images to calculate the extent of ice on Tempel 1's surface. That turns out to be a small fraction of the surface, only 0.5%. "
"What is significant is that the extent of this ice on Tempel 1's surface is not sufficient to produce the observed abundance of water and its by-products in the comet's coma. "
So in light of those findings, "the team thus concludes that there are sources of water from beneath the comet's surface that supply the cometary coma as well."
A lot could happen in the next 60 days so I don't know if I'll have time to prepare a more detailed response in that time or not. In the meantime you certainly are entitled to follow this site's terms and conditions section 6 regarding anything I post here, which basically says you can cite the information elsewhere as long as you properly cite the source.
Originally posted by vind21
I am mainly replying to ask permission to present the information you posted to thornhill and others as they have requested. If you would like to prepare a small paper etc instead of just the post that would be fine. As I stated there is an open request for this kind of refute to thier claims.
You apparently didn't read the paper I cited. It's based on measurements not assumptions:
Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
The study LEAPS to the conclusion that the ice MUST be beneath the surface because they don't see it on the surface. There is ZERO proof of this claim. It is an ASSUMPTION.
IR spectrometer measurements, and not assumptions, form the basis of the determination of water.
Although not observed in the ambient coma or on the preimpact nuclear surface, water ice is detected in the ejecta from the DI impact experiment. Strong water ice absorptions at 3 μm are observed with the IR spectrometer within 3 s of the impact (after the passage of the shocked vapor plume) and remain throughout the DI flyby observations, ∼45 min after impact.
This is not a hard concept. Haven't you ever noticed that a loaf of fresh bread has moisture distributed evenly throughout the loaf, but after being exposed to a low humidity environment the crust dries out? Then you can slice into the bread and find lots of moisture still in the interior, but the crust can be very dry. This is just an analogy, since I'm not saying the comet is completely similar to a loaf of bread, just that the concept of drying on the exterior before the interior should not be hard to understand.
* So virtually no surface ice? How can a dirty snowball have no surface ice? Scientists are telling me that there are thousands of hollow rocks out there that just happened to be filled with ice?
Part of the mentality of EU proponents seems to be that the standard model denies there is any electricity in the universe. Obviously this is false. The standard model does admit that there are some electrical and electromagnetic effects. The fact that comets have water ice doesn't preclude them from interacting with the solar wind and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that interaction might have something to do with the X-rays.
* And then comets have been observed to emit X-rays!??? How does sublimating ice produce x-rays? Multiple comets, such as Hyakutake and Lulin have been observed to emit huge amounts of xrays.
This doesn't seem strange at all to me. Don't you understand the "dirty" in "dirty iceball"? There is a lot of cosmic dust for one thing. The Earth is bombarded with something like 40 tons of the stuff every day. But the water ice in the interior of Tempel 1 was relatively free of "dirt".
But then it gets stranger still! Comets are so black that carbon black has been proposed to explain their surface albedo. You don't get carbon black from primordial dust. Where did it come from? Why does it cover the entire surface, with no ice present, if comets are continually losing mass from discharging?
OH is not neutral, is it?
* And what about those filamented tails that stretch across the solar system? How does neutral gas acting in the vacuum of space maintain a collimated tail across such vast distances without dispersing?
The Earth has elements heavier than iron like gold and uranium. Those materials didn't form in our solar system either. So I don't know how people get the delusion that the only way materials can exist in our solar system is if they formed in our solar system. That's an absurd idea. It's quite obvious that material in our solar system contains at least 2nd generation and possibly 3rd generation supernova debris where all kinds of previous conditions existed that formed many of the things we see in our solar system that were not formed where we now see them. Now if the video tried to make the point that the models of solar system formation still need work, I don't think anybody would disagree with that. But I don't find it any more surprising there's stuff in the Oort cloud that didn't form in the Oort cloud than I do that there's gold on Earth that didn't form on Earth. Why is this so hard to understand?
And what about the Stardust mission, which came back with results that indicate the dust collected must have been formed under intense heat? "X-ray absorption spectroscopy in the current study showed that the grains are composed primarily of high-temperature metal....The X-ray and isotopic analyses point to gas acquisition in a hot, high-ion flux nebular environment" - That doesn't sound like an Oort cloud to me.
If I watch a high speed video of a drop of water falling into a pond, I see water ejected from the surface of the pond. Does this mean I need an electric pond theory to explain it? The odds of the water being ejected seem to be pretty close to 100%. I don't know how you get these strange odds like million to one.
* How can a dirty ball of ice cause CMEs on the Sun? It's happened AT LEAST TWICE in just the past two years! What are the odds? Millions to one?
Something like rock on the outside, and water ice on the inside, at least for Tempel 1. It wouldn't be a "dirty" snowball without some "dirt" or rocks.
* And then there are the images. Every image of a comet nucleus that I've seen looks like a piece of cratered rock. Why don't they look like a melted snowball?
Actually I hope you understand the bread analogy and how it can dry out on the exterior while retaining moisture ion the interior. I see no reason why a moist porous boulder in space couldn't also dry out on the surface while retaining moisture on the interior. It's not exactly "hollow", but Temple 1 is apparently composed of "porous" material.
Great questions, no?