The Electric Comet Theory Part IV/SAFIRE

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesdave116 (Post 12466926) Subsurface properties and early activity of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko Gulkis, S. et al. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6220/aaa0709 Tensile strength of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko nucleus material from overhangs Attree, N. et al. https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pd...aa32155-17.pdf Gravitational slopes, geomorphology, and material strengths of the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko from OSIRIS observations. Groussin, O. et al. https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/ab...a26379-15.html See Table 1. Constraints on cometary surface evolution derived from a statistical analysis of 67P’s topography Vincent, J.-B. et al. https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...2/S329/3930861 Thermal inertia and roughness of the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko from MIRO and VIRTIS observations. Marshall, D. et al. https://boris.unibe.ch/118280/1/aa33104-18.pdf Thermal and mechanical properties of the near-surface layers of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Spohn, T. et al. https://www.semanticscholar.org/pape...5a1c445e3b00e3 Structure and elastic parameters of the near surface of Abydos site on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, as obtained by SESAME/CASSE listening to the MUPUS insertion phase. Look at the strengths measured, and then refer back to the post by The Man, here; http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1448 Properties of the 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko interior revealed by CONSERT radar Kofman, W. et al. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/2/aab0639 Note the permittivity value of 1.27. Also note that the permittivity of vacuum is 1. And then refer to this; https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/r...ty-d_1660.html And this;2 And this; https://gpg.geosci.xyz/content/physi...ivity-minerals And this; https://gpg.geosci.xyz/content/physi...ttivity-frozen The Deep Impact crater on 9P/Tempel-1 from Stardust-NExT Schultz, P. H. et al. https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...19103512002473 Then go and look for an online crater calculator, and see how big the crater would be in rock, for an object of ~ 370 kg, and an impact speed of ~ 10 km/s. In summary, there is not a single shred of evidence for rock, and an absolute shed load that says that it isn't. Therefore, anybody who is suggesting it is rock is either lying, scientifically illiterate, or brainwashed by neo-Velikoskian con artists. Or a combination of all three.

:thumbsup: Great compilation jd116! :D

Now, i’m just happy that we can all call the CONSOLIDATED material ROCK, not ACTUAL ROCK mind you, as Reality Check states (We have a mixture of ices and dust with high porosity in a low gravity environment. That mixture does not exist n Earth. We want a name for it. So we use terms like rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc. keeping in mind that that they are not actual rock, bedrock, boulder, stone, etc.) but just kinda rocky looking, so we’ll call it rock even when we ALL know it’s not actual rock.

But there is an electric field centred on a cometary nucleus.

Is this electric field strong enough to lift dust odd in jets jd116?