The Recurring Odd Shape Of Comets

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

This twin lobed shape is not a coincidence. It is not caused by two comets smashing into each other. It is caused by a massive electrical discharge blasting material off the surface of planets and moons.

Really and when have we see one of these massive electrical discharges

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

This twin lobed shape is not a coincidence. It is not caused by two comets smashing into each other. It is caused by a massive electrical discharge blasting material off the surface of planets and moons.

Really and when have we see one of these massive electrical discharges

Right here:

www.libertariannews.org...

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I happen to think you're absolutely right, but here you're likely to experience the "Science Already Knows Exactly How The Universe Works!!!" crowd... They're everywhere, and their poor lil butts hurt terribly if you so much as hint that they might be wrong.

Watch out the kindergarten crowd are here

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

This twin lobed shape is not a coincidence. It is not caused by two comets smashing into each other. It is caused by a massive electrical discharge blasting material off the surface of planets and moons.

Really and when have we see one of these massive electrical discharges

Right here:

www.libertariannews.org...

Oh the old circular argument, M S

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

This twin lobed shape is not a coincidence. It is not caused by two comets smashing into each other. It is caused by a massive electrical discharge blasting material off the surface of planets and moons.

Really and when have we see one of these massive electrical discharges

Right here:

www.libertariannews.org...

Oh the old circular argument, M S

Because pointing to an enormous electrical discharge that's machining the surface of a moon is a circular argument.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

This twin lobed shape is not a coincidence. It is not caused by two comets smashing into each other. It is caused by a massive electrical discharge blasting material off the surface of planets and moons.

Really and when have we see one of these massive electrical discharges

Right here:

www.libertariannews.org...

Oh the old circular argument, M S

Because pointing to an enormous electrical discharge that's machining the surface of a moon is a circular argument.

NOT proved YET, but you know why I said circular argument so don't act dumb!!!!

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

This twin lobed shape is not a coincidence. It is not caused by two comets smashing into each other. It is caused by a massive electrical discharge blasting material off the surface of planets and moons.

Really and when have we see one of these massive electrical discharges

Right here:

www.libertariannews.org...

Oh the old circular argument, M S

Because pointing to an enormous electrical discharge that's machining the surface of a moon is a circular argument.

NOT proved YET, but you know why I said circular argument so don't act dumb!!!!

I have more proof that it is an electrical discharge than you have proof it is a volcano. You asked to see a massive discharge capable of creating a comet, and I showed you one. I even included a paper by two eminent plasma physicists explaining it for you.

Typing my reply as I read through the thread.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Melting snowball?

No, not quite. I think the last time I heard of a comet seriously being called a "melting (usually dirty) snowball" was grade school. If you read anything scientific now about comets, they are not referred to in this manner. This "dirty snowball" name comes from Fred Whipple's model, dating to the early 1950s entitled A Comet Model. Today when comets are refered to as "dirty snowballs" it is typically to explain things in layman's terms.

Today, through advances in science, exploration, computers, modeling, etc... we have come to understand that comets are more akin to "icy dirtballs." This term is actually relatively recent and dates back to shortly after NASA's Deep Impact encountered Comet Tempel.

It's a rather odd coincidence that EU theorists found this same shape to be present in discharge experiments, no? How many more rocky, cratered, solid, pitch black, twin lobed pieces of rock do we need to look at before EU theorists are proven right? A hundred? A thousand?

Which discharge experiments? I'm ony asking because there are so many variations that can be done, it wouldn't surprise me if any shape desired could be created. Even more so if the discharges is shaped through the use of magnetic fields. Can you lead me to specific examples?

Nearly all bodies in space that lack an atmosphere, and even those that have a this to moderately dense atmosphere, are rocky, cratered, and solid. This goes from small, insignificant asteroids and comets all the way up to planets, such as Earth and Venus.

As far as the black surfaces goes, that's a trait that seems to be fairly common among comets. A celestial body's ability to reflect light is called its "albedo." Comets are thought to have a surface comprised of complex organic compounds, similar to tar and oil. This is because solar heating has caused the lighter compounds to be blown off, leaving these heavier compounds behind. It is also believed that this low albedo is what allows comets to absorb the heat required to develop the outgassing seen as they approach the sun.

So what about the asteroids and comets that do not share a lobed shape?

This twin lobed shape is not a coincidence. It is not caused by two comets smashing into each other. It is caused by a massive electrical discharge blasting material off the surface of planets and moons.

Oh. And what credible, scientific information do you have to back this statement up?

Here's a breakdown of the shapes we've observed on the few comet nucleus that we've directly imaged:

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

Over 50% of them have twin lobes.

I'm not sure if I'm following your logic on this. So because half of the comets you listed have lobed shapes they were created from "massive electrical discharges." Is that what you're trying to say? What about the comets that are, as you state, round and oblong? What about asteroids? Most asteroids are not round in shape, but also are irregular in shape.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Why aren't planets shaped like that too?

Planets are formed by the accretion of particles in the protoplanetary disk. Grains of dust, ices, and other materials coagulate into larger and larger clumps. If this disk is large enough it can lead to the runaway formation of bodies, creating several planetary emryos which form a round shape under their own gravity.

Essentially, these smaller bodies do not have enough mass to pull themselves into round shapes, leading to the irregular shapes we see in comets and asteroids today.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Indigent
Round objects were created in the experiments too.

Ah, someone beat me to my query. I see you have covered your bases so you remain correct, while not actually providing any information. Which experiments?

a reply to: AlphaHawk
a reply to: DJW001
It seems that AlphaHawk and DJW011 know what they're talking about!

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
The lobed shape is not a random coincidence.

You keep saying this, yet you have not provided any evidence aside from your good word. Do you have this information to provide?

a reply to: Urantia1111

I'm hardly upset about this at all. I'll entertain any idea or hypothesis to stimulate an intelligent discussion. I'm just asking for evidence from credible, scientific sources to back these claims up. So far into this thread I have yet to see anything.

a reply to: AlphaHawk
a reply to: DJW001
Glad to see I'm not the only one who saw through these holes in the hyposthesis!

CONTINUED...

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: AlphaHawk
It's not all that over-simplified.

You sure are presenting it as such.

Comets are the darkest known objects in the universe. They are blacker than asphalt. This is because they are burned to a crisp by electrical discharges.

While they are typically darker than asphalt (which has an albedo of around 7%, compared to the 4% of comet nucleii), they are not the darkest known objects in the universe. I explained the commonly accepted hypothesis for why the albedo is so low previously.

All of the comets we have directly imaged have turned out to be cratered pieces of solid rock, with virtually no ice present on the surface. Many comets have been observed to have no ice on the surface at all.

The same goes for asteroids, even those we believe to be the dead nucleii of comets. The commonly accepted hypothesis is that the ice and lighter organic materials have been blown off the surface already, leaving the majority of it inside the comet. As the comet heats up and comes closer to the sun, the cracks (which are not necessarily the large, dynamic, cracks in the ground that movies would have you believe) will open up and allow for the heated gasses to escape.

No discharging "vent" has ever been directly imaged with close-up pictures. Chury will be no exception.

Here is an image taken in 1986 by the ESA's Giotto spacecraft of Halley's comet. It shows a vent in action. I'm willing to bet that isn't direct enough for you though.

The Rosetta probe will orbit Chury for months, and it will NEVER directly image a so-called "vent" spraying water-ice into space.

That is a bold statement. And what if, during its time in orbit around Chury, these vents are imaged? Also, while they may contain a fair amount of water based ice, there is a fair certainty other compounds will be (such as carbon and hydohen compounds) will be found. What will you have to say then?

EU theory predicts the Rosetta lander may have problems sticking to the surface of Chury because it will not have any ice to drill into. It will have to drill into solid rock, which will probably cause the lander to bounce off the surface once they attempt to drill into it.

I believe that one of the main components of the Philae lander is that it will use harpoons to help anchor it to the surface of the comet. Each leg also has a screw that will assist in anchoring it to the surface as well.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
EU theory says there is no compositional difference between comets and asteroids. They are made of the same stuff and made the same way.

The only difference between a comet and an asteroid is it's orbit and the inherent electrical charge of the object.

Asteroids are typically formed from heavier elements, such as iron. This is why they are found more in the inner solar system. As the protoplantary disk was blown out by solar pressure, the heavier elements stayed closer in. (This is the same reason many terrestial planets are found closer to the sun.) Comets were formed from the lighter elements, as the coalesced into their bodies in the Oort and Hills clouds.

Simple measuements of density can show that they are of very differing compositions.

We should see little over-all difference between comets and asteroids in terms of their appearance, which indeed seems to be the case.

If we take the comet coma out of a picture and put comet images side-by-side with asteroid pictures, an untrained eye could not tell the difference between the two.

Just because they look similar, does not mean they are similar. Apricots and nectarines look similar, but are different. My eye is untrained, so without the sign in the produce department to tell me which is which I would have a 50/50 guess to correctly identify them.

While some asteroids are thought to be dead comets, this is not the case for all asteroids. Also, what about the asteroids that have enough mass to form a sperical shape?

(Geez, that was just the first page...)

a reply to: AlphaHawk
And that one looks a lot better than the nearly thirty year old photo I linked to. Great work!

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

You can't see the supposed holes in the rock.

In fact, those images show a virtual white-out because the discharges are producing their own light. Ice doesn't produce it's own light. See how the discharges are glowing even in the shadows?

I called that one...

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
I don't have the time or ability to watch a youtube video and I don't really find them a good source for scientific facts.

I'm in the same boat. There is so much nonsense on YouTube that I don't watch many of the videos. On top of that, a 90 minute video is a lot for me. (I've been working on these posts all day. I have a five month old who's teething and figuring out how to crawl, so my hands are full!)

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
If you don't want to watch the video, I'm not going to explain all 90 minutes of material in a forum post for you.

Can you summarize the key points in a few paragraphs?

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Theories and modeels change, especially as advancements in other fields of science are made. This is pretty common. Hundreds of years ago science was completely different than it is now, but that was the foundation for what we have gained today.

If the probe does stick, it may be because a layer of dust provides enough traction for it to hold, or possibly because the drills were able to penetrate the rock. There's no way to know for sure.

Way to give yourself a preemptory out. Before you seemed very certain that the probe would not stick and would "bounce off."

(End of page two...)

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
The standard theory called for the probe drills to be designed with ice in mind, not rock. If it doesn't stick, it's because the surface was not composed of the material scientists expected - otherwise they would have designed the drills to penetrate rock, not ice.

Why couldn't they have developed drill bits that would be equally suited for both? In my tool sets I have wood bits, and I have metal bits. But I also have bits that work equally well in both mediums.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

How is the accelerating solar wind evidence of an electrical field?

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
That's not my problem. I'm not your research assistant.

Well, this explains your unwillingness to provide anything aside from a YouTube video and a link to a Wikipedia article. If you would like any credible, scientific sources for my statements I'll be glad to provide them.

CONTINUED...

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
The solar wind is composed of charged particles. The fact these particles increase in speed the further away they are from the Sun indicates there is an electric field present.

Actually, the mechanism for the heating and acceleration of the solar wind has been found using the nearly two decades old probe WIND. WIND was launched in November 1994 with the purpose of studying the Earth's magnetosphere and its interactions with the solar wind. Despite being launched in 1994, it was not inserted into its correct orbital position until 2004. It wasn't until 2013, when a reseach paper enititled Sensitive Test for Ion-Cyclotron Resonant Heating in the Solar Wind was published.

Here is the abstract of this paper:

Plasma carrying a spectrum of counterpropagating field-aligned ion-cyclotron waves can strongly and preferentially heat ions through a stochastic Fermi mechanism. Such a process has been proposed to explain the extreme temperatures, temperature anisotropies, and speeds of ions in the solar corona and solar wind. We quantify how differential flow between ion species results in a Doppler shift in the wave spectrum that can prevent this strong heating. Two critical values of differential flow are derived for strong heating of the core and tail of a given ion distribution function. Our comparison of these predictions to observations from the Wind spacecraft reveals excellent agreement. Solar wind helium that meets the condition for strong core heating is nearly 7 times hotter than hydrogen on average. Ion-cyclotron resonance contributes to heating in the solar wind, and there is a close link between heating, differential flow, and temperature anisotropy.

The full paper can be found here: Sensitive Test for Ion-Cyclotron Resonant Heating in the Solar Wind

I came to this information through this article here, but since I have asked you for credible, scientific date repeatedly I figured I would play the part of reserach assistant and give you the raw paper.

a reply to: wildespace
Hah! Great minds think alike, eh?

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
So one of your key points of your argument has been how newer data has upset the older data and is more relevant. Using your own arguments, this paper is outdated and incorrect solely by having a newer, contradictory paper.

(End of page three...)

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

One of the first things in that article states:

Where’s the ash? Where’s the smoke? Where’s the rivers of lava?

Not all volcanoes erupting on Earth produce ash and smoke while erupting. Why should Io be any different?

Why isn’t the ground under the plume glowing from molten chunks of rock?

The images taken by all the probes that have shown plumes have been from a moderate distance away. I'm not sure of any close up images of the plumes, though I wouldn't be shocked if they exist. This distance, and the lack of fine resolution, can partially be able to explain why you cannot see fine details below the plume.

Where are the pyroclastic flows?

Here is an image of lava on Io.

Here is another.

Why is the plume made up of filaments instead of clouds?

I'm not sure, but my guess would have something to do with the lack of tangible atmosphere. For example, on Earth when there is a arge eruption, the ash, smoke, soot, etc... are blown around by the atmosphere. On Io, where the atmosphere is very slight, the debris will fall back to the surface in an umbrella like formation.

Why is the plume glowing blue?

Again, I am not one hundred percent positive, however I would believe it is a combination of the gasses ejected (including sulfur, sulur dioxide, sodium, potassium, and chlorine) creating the color.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Right here:

www.libertariannews.org...

Oh, man! So I was just doing some more reading and digging through stuff. That link you posted above links to your blog, that you wrote. I think that alone invalidates any argument you could propose.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

Pat yourself on the back for making a valiant effort to defend the status quo.

Get back to me when the landing probe drills into "ice" and takes images of "vents" on the surface of Chury.

I think they're lobed because of how they spin through space.

a reply to: Spruce

You can spin solid rock as fast as you want and it's not going to make those lobes.

The Rosetta probe was launched way back in 2004, before the mountain of data proving comets are solid rock from various other probes was collected.

The Rosetta and Philae landing probe were designed to investigate a large chunk of ice, not a gigantic boulder.

The probe is going to have a fun time trying to get readings from the comet. The equivalent weight of the lander on the comet compared to Earth will be about 10 grams. The harpoon isn't going to stick into rock, so it will have to make it's landing with a perfect velocity in order for it to land successfully. In fact, depending on when they fire that harpoon, the recoil alone might send the probe flying off into space. It wouldn't surprise me if NASA figures this out ahead of time and simply tries to land without bothering to even try the harpoon or ice augers on the probe at all.

The probe was designed to deal with landing in sand. EU theory predicts the surface may have a coating of extremely fine dust. If the dust is thick enough, the probe may make a successful landing, but I think it will be an extremely close call. It's supposed to land at 1 m/s, which, if it hits a rocky bottom, is probably enough force to bounce it off the comet. The dust may also be compacted because of how fine it will be. If the dust is compacted enough, the probe will bounce. The dust is expected to be like talcum powder, not sand.

I predict the following:

-No ice will be found.
-No vents will be imaged.
-The lander may bounce off the comet and go flying into space.
-If it actually makes it to the surface, the plasma probe will find "unusual" or "surprising" readings.
-The lander may also short out from an electrical exchange.
-The CONSERT (COmet Nucleus Sounding Experiment by Radiowave Transmission) sensor will return data consistent with a solid piece of rock, not a hollow snowball.

-And if we are super lucky, we will get clear undeniable imagery of a plasma discharge actively machining the surface of the comet.

The other predictions I made back in November of 2013 have already proven to be correct:

-The surface will be heavily cratered, with sharply defined ridges and mesas.
-The surface will be blackened and charred from electrical scaring. It will have the albedo of asphalt. -

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Zero effort to answer any of my questions or provide any backing evidence to your claims... I bet you gave yourself a part on the back for that deflection.

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Zero effort to answer any of my questions or provide any backing evidence to your claims... I bet you gave yourself a part on the back for that deflection.

I already presented my case. If you don't want to read the articles or watch the video, no skin off my back.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I don't count a blog article that you wrote for your blog as a scientific resource. And, as I stated in my previous posts, with a five month old it's kind of hard to stay in one place and watch a 90+ minute video. Can you provide a paragraph or two of synopsis?

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I don't count a blog article that you wrote for your blog as a scientific resource. And, as I stated in my previous posts, with a five month old it's kind of hard to stay in one place and watch a 90+ minute video. Can you provide a paragraph or two of synopsis?

The blog article I wrote is sourced. I'm not going to repeat the whole thing for you here just because you don't like reading it from my blog.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I can't find your sources. Are they the links within your article? Any word on that video synopsis?

I'm really open to having a discussion with you, but you seem to be unwilling to do anything further to substantiate your claims. You just deflect and belittle anything contradictory to your beliefs anyone has to say. Not sure if you understand the concept of a discussion board...

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

See all the blue links in the article?

Click on them.