Replies

What a mess!!! In any case, and coincidentally, I just finished watching a PBS show on the Rosetta's trip to the comet. Some conflicting information on the show but I suppose that's to be expected. In one of their demos they combined a mixture of "snow" and sand(I believe). Placed in a chamber, reduced temp to -195(F?), pulled a vacuum and nothing happened until they applied what they called the sun; something resembling a heat lamp. Things began to cook off in fairly dramatic fashion.

In a later portion of the show they determined the comet was NOT made of ice and furthermore, the density of the comet was much lighter than water; that is to say, this comet, or rock(?), would ride high in the water. Interesting that. It also brought to mind another type of rock that coincidentally fits what we actually observe. This thing actually LOOKS like lava rock and more specifically pumice. What are the odds...

After making what I thought was a fairly astute observation re a comet's characteristics and not getting a reply it occurs to me my first sentence in my previous reply MAY have had something to do with it...maybe not. You may have thought my comment "What a mess!!!" referred to your post. It did NOT. It was my opinion on the state of affairs generally about the inconsistent application of the scientific method concerning this issue...and others. I apologize for any confusion my lack of clarity may have caused. That critique from a non scientist BTW. I'm an old retired salesman with an interest in the, well, natural world, FWIW.

Moving along. I have spent a good deal of time trying to find additional information regarding alternative research on comets. As you're no doubt aware, there's not much out there. Maybe the same people are too busy banging the drum for algore warming or other "conventional wisdom", I dunno.

Although their instruments detected no water ice on(or in?) the comet; what to make of the water vapor their instruments detect escaping from the comet. Anywhere from a teacup full to over a gallon per SECOND.Might it be trapped in a highly vesicular chunk of rock. The rock itself appears to have been formed under "extreme" conditions.

What a mess!!! In any case, and coincidentally, I just finished watching a PBS show on the Rosetta's trip to the comet. Some conflicting information on the show but I suppose that's to be expected. In one of their demos they combined a mixture of "snow" and sand(I believe). Placed in a chamber, reduced temp to -195(F?), pulled a vacuum and nothing happened until they applied what they called the sun; something resembling a heat lamp. Things began to cook off in fairly dramatic fashion.

Sorry for not replying sooner. I just saw your reply. I've been down with the flu.

It is a mess. They are trying to bend and twist the results they are finding to confirm their preconceived theory. It is the worst of confirmation bias. I, too, saw that special. That heat lamp was a joke! They had to raise the heat on that petri dish of mixed ice and dirt far beyond the temperatures that hold in deep space (-140º C) which is also insulated by a coat of what appears to be rock 12-20cm deep (R-?) before it hits their putative ice.

Then they have another problem. They claim that a small, itty-bitty chunk of something with a gravity field of 1.5mm/sec/sec can control a coma cloud of gas that can exceed ten million miles in diameter against the solar wind. How can that be? Frankly, it can't. Not by gravity.

And you are right, they concluded it can't be just ice, either. Yet they have cannot ask the other questions that start to provide the answers.