Are comets really dirty snowballs?!?!

The remarkable properties of comets are not even remotely explicable by any of the numerous ad hoc assumptions of 'modern' comet theory.

Comet Wild 2


I would like to entertain the thought that comets are not dirty snowballs.
Also, lets explore the avenue of whether or not venus is a captured comet.....

What is the relationship that comets have with our Sun...?.....



I think the recent discoveries in EU/Plasma Cosmology have given rise to discuss this subject once more.

I'd like to see some recent articles that support your ideas as well.

-Dev

Edit: Hyperlink



[edit on 7-1-2008 by DevolutionEvolvd]

I would like to entertain the thought that comets are not dirty snowballs.

what do you suggest they are then?

Also, lets explore the avenue of whether or not venus is a captured comet.....

it depends on what angle you're arguing from. at the very best, all i can grant you is that from a certain perspective all of the planets are trapped "comets". but i don't think that would really be accurate.

What is the relationship that comets have with our Sun...?.....

gravity.

I am not sure what they are. However, I am sure what they are not. And they are not dirty snowballs that are leftover from the formation of the solar system.

As for their relationship with the sun, I am speaking of a direct relationship that is consequential. As in; comets causing solar weather to heighten and sometimes produce solar storms...

what makes you think they are something other than rock and ice?

as for your 2nd point, my first reaction is that there is no direct correlation between the comet and that flare - only coincidence, but after pondering...

look up stan deyo. he has some very interesting theories about gravity. i'll probably get this wrong, but i'll give it a shot:

large bodies don't have any inherent attractive force. it's more like matter makes ripples in space, not wells as conventionally thought. those ripples eventually bounce off of space itself and are reflected back. the crossing of the waves going in opposite directions create variances in what we think of as gravity by canceling and amplifying each other. essentially planets follow the paths they are on because that's the only place they CAN orbit. supposedly if you were to shift the orbit of a planet even slightly, it would either make its way back to its previous orbit or it would be destroyed. he believes there used to be a planet between mars and jupiter, but it was knocked off orbit and destroyed. not necessarily from the force of the impact, but because it no longer had a stable orbit. anyway, depending on where you are the force of "gravity" can have a net pull or even a net push in relationship to a stellar body. he claims that this effect was even measured on probes that have been sent out (voyagers, etc).

if you were to buy into that thinking then that could explain what you've shown in these pics. the comet could be throwing out its "wave" of space displacement and causing the sun to release a flare due to the compression.

maybe that at least gives you some things to think about. if you're interested in stan deyo, just google him. he did a presentation at the recent roswell shindig and he's a pretty interesting guy. you can probably find videos out there too - look up stan deyo antigravity.


[edit on 7-1-2008 by an0maly33]

Well, first of all, none of the pictures of comets we have are yet to look like a dirty snowball. And they emit x-rays???? Which could happen naturaly from high voltage discharges.

Yes, I've heard Stan Deyo on coast to coast. He is interesting. I would have to take a look at his work in depth.

if you're looking for something to literally look like a dirty snowball then yeah, they won't look right. think of them as asteroids that are composed of rock and ice. that's exactly what they look like. as far as x-ray emission, i'm not privy to what objects emit what frequencies of the EM spectrum, but that doesn't sound very abnormal to me. you might want to look into that specifically. overall i don't think there's anything going on here that is outside the explanation of known science and even some ideas that haven't necessarily been fully accepted.

Actually, there has been a steady shift in thinking amongst the scientific community towards comets being more like snowy-dirtballs in recent years. The public perception that they are more like dirty-snowballs remains though.

Whatever the case may be, I think that we are only just beginning to understand the nature of these objects, and could well find a whole range of compositions ranging from snowy-dirtball to dirty-snowball, and who knows what else. As with many things in this universe, the truth probably lies somewhere in-between the two extremes.

Originally posted by an0maly33
if you're looking for something to literally look like a dirty snowball then yeah, they won't look right.

Ok, by dirty snowball I literally mean, rock and ice.

Originally posted by an0maly33
as far as x-ray emission, i'm not privy to what objects emit what frequencies of the EM spectrum, but that doesn't sound very abnormal to me

Well, Comets Emit light Electro Magnetic radiation in the form of, you guessed it, X-Rays. And the explanation given by scientists is fabricated at best. Other models actually predicted this would happen before it was observed.

Originally posted by an0maly33
overall i don't think there's anything going on here that is outside the explanation of known science and even some ideas that haven't necessarily been fully accepted.

Thank you for your input. The reason I started this thread however, was to bring a discussion about with opinions that were supported by information.

reply to post by C.H.U.D.


I agree that we are only beginning to understand these objects. Thanks to recent missions, we are learning more about them, but it would seem that the information is becoming ever more challenging. Comet 85P/Boethin has disappeared and scientists don't have a clue what to think. This object was intened for a flyby of the Deep Impact spacecraft. I guess not now....

Hi DevolutionEvolvd, great idea for a thread, this is another area where electric/plasma theory shines.

There's absolutely no reason to believe comets are dirty snowballs except for years of speculation. It's based on the assumption that the jets and tail are the result of icy deposits being melted from the nucleus.

However samples of comet dust have shown materials that have been formed in extremely high temperatures, scientist then throw in more ad hoc saying that the materials must have formed near the sun are then cast to the outer reaches of the solar system were the comet forms and then somehow are thrown into an elliptical orbits.

From an EU point of view the composition of a comet needs to be no different to that of an asteroid, what differentiates them is the comets elliptical orbit through the suns electrical field.
Any negative body in space will form a protective plasma sheath or double layer, this separates the charge potential between itself and the solar plasma, when it is excited enough a glow discharge becomes visible. (coma) As a comet nears the sun because of it's wide elliptical orbit, the negatively charged comet begins interacting with the suns positive electric field and begins discharging, the jets carve out craters on the surface.
So it's the elliptical orbit that makes a comet a comet and once again points to the obvious, that the sun is electrical in nature.

Comet X-rays, a coma larger than the sun glowing with UV light, million degree coma temperatures, supersonic jets, filamentary tails spanning millions of kilometers etc.. these are all signs of an electrical phenomena not dirty snowballs.

I'll add some more later.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by squiz]

A very thought provoking thread. I appreciate your starting it. If the EU/PC idea is going to be discussed, then it needs a wide variety of scenarios putting it to the test.

Good job.

From an EU point of view the composition of a comet is no different to an asteroid, what differentiates them is the comets elliptical orbit through the suns electrical field.
Any negative body in space will form a protective plasma sheath or double layer, this separates the charge potential between itself and the solar plasma, when it is excited enough a glow discharge becomes visible. (coma) As a comet nears the sun because of it's wide elliptical orbit, the negatively charged comet begins interacting with the suns positive electric field and begins discharging, the jets carve out craters on the surface.
So it's the elliptical orbit that makes a comet a comet and once again points to the obvious, that the sun is electrical in nature.

How does this theory explain the inactive nature of certain asteroids that have highly elliptical orbits ? How does this theory explain the active nature of certain comets that have orbits with relatively low eccentricity ?

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


It may be a bit of a mystery what exactly happened to Comet 85P/Boethin, but to say scientists don't have a clue is going too far.

Comet 85P/Boethin is not the first comet to not reappearas predicted. It is not that uncommon for a comet to be never seen again. Sometimes they break up because solar radiation causes an eruption. Sometimes they break up due to the gravity of a larger body in its vicinity, such as a planet.

If it breaks up enough, the remaining pieces may be too small to detect. Or maybe the act of breaking up causes it to change its orbit, thus not being in the location that it is expected to be in. Sometimes an eruption can cause it to end up in a different orbit.

reply to post by Mogget


That's interesting, and you are correct I may have to pose that question to the authorities, however I would guess that the asteroid/comet has found equilibrium with the electric field. Very good question though.
As for low eccentric orbits it doesn't take much, some asteroids have also shown signs of cometary tails.
When Asteroids become Comets

Actually I can't find any examples of asteroids with highly elliptical orbits any help would be appreciated.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by squiz]

85P/Boethin is still eleven months away from perihelion passage (December 16), so we will have to wait and see whether it has suffered a catastrophic disruption. Like the poster above has indicated, these things happen to comets. The most famous example would be 3D/Biela, which was seen to have broken into two components in 1846. Both fragments were observed during the 1852 return, and then the comet was never seen again. Dramatic meteor showers were observed in 1872 and 1885, and these were almost certainly the remains of the comet.

Originally posted by squiz
However samples of comet dust have shown materials that have been formed in extremely high temperatures, scientist then throw in more ad hoc saying that the materials must have formed near the sun are then cast to the outer reaches of the solar system were the comet forms and then somehow are thrown into an elliptical orbits.

Well, it is understood that ALL elements heaviear than iron were formed during a supernova explosion. The heavy elements that make up parts of you, me, the Earth, and everything else in the solar system (including comets) were formed in a supernova explosion(s) that happened billions of years before our Sun and system were born.

Comets and Kuiper belt objects could be leftover pieces from this original material that built the sun and planets out of the "primeval nebula" that was formed by remnants of ancient dead stars. That would explain the materials being formed in extremely high heat.

Like Carl Sagan said..."we are made of star-stuff"

[edit on 1/8/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

Going too far? Perhaps. But is it not going too far to assume that a large planet, and there are only a few of them around , disintegrated a comet without us knowing? I think we know now that the passing of a comet anywhere near a large planet can be quite the spectacle. Oh... Solar radiation caused the core to heat up and tear itself apart at that distance from the Sun. Really? Seems like quite a stretch.

They might have a clue, but it is a guess at best. Can we not consider a model that might predict such an event BEFORE witnessing it? This is all I am saying....

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I'd agree with that except for the fact that comets are described as dirty snowballs made of ice and other frozen gases.
www.universetoday.com...

The electric model has stood up to the test, Wall Thornhill made several accurate predictions regarding the deep impact mission, The preliminary flash, the larger than expected explosion, x-rays and the surprising lack of water were all predicted and verified.

That's interesting, I do not know of any inactive comets/asteroids with elliptical orbits. If you can name any specific ones I'll seek out an answer.

Many asteroids and/or inactive comets have highly elliptical orbits. The question is....are you referring to objects with long periods (in other words, those that spend most of their time in the outer Solar System), or does this include NEOs and main belt objects ?

You might like to investigate the Centaur and Damocloid groups of asteroids. Whilst a handful of these have since displayed slight cometary activity, many of them remain inactive. Good examples are 5335 Damocles and 1996PW.

In addition, there are many comets with currently low eccentricity orbits, including 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann, 74P/Smirnova-Chernykh, and 133P/Elst-Pizarro. The latter is actually a main belt object, but it was re-designated as a comet when it was found to be active.

Going too far? Perhaps. But is it not going too far to assume that a large planet (and there are only a few of them around) disintegrated a comet without us knowing?

You don't need a large planet (or indeed, any object with a strong gravitational field) to tear a comet apart. One theory is that comets could quite possibly be rather porous, with various chunks and boulders held together by frozen ices trapped between them. When those ices (and that doesn't necessarily mean water ice) melt, the "glue" that bonds the boulders together effectively disappears, and only relatively gentle forces would be required to separate them.



[edit on 8-1-2008 by Mogget]

[edit on 8-1-2008 by Mogget]

reply to post by Mogget


Thanks I'll definitely check it out and get back. This seems to be related to what your talking about from the link I posted above.

“the locales of comets and asteroids may not be such a key distinction”, states Dan Vergano, reporting on the work of two University of Hawaii astronomers, Henry Hsieh and David Jewitt. In a survey of 300 asteroids lurking in the asteroid belt, the astronomers detected three objects that “look a lot like comets … ejecting little comet tails at times from their surfaces”. The three red circles in the illustration above describe the orbits of these bodies

Of course, this is not the first instance of an 'asteroid' sporting a cometary tail. The asteroid Chiron, orbiting between Saturn and Uranus, was seen to develop a coma and tail between 1988 and 1989. It is now officially classified as both an asteroid and a comet. Chiron belongs to a class of objects called 'Centaurs' crossing the orbits of various gas giants. Though they move on minimally eccentric orbits through a relatively remote and weak region of the Sun’s electric field, Wallace Thornhill and other electrical theorists believe these bodies should all be watched carefully for telltale signs of minor cometary activity. And in fact the asteroid 60558 Echeclus, discovered in 2000, did display a cometary coma detected in 2005, and it too is now classified as both an asteroid and a comet.

You might like to investigate the Centaur and Damocloid groups of asteroids. Whilst a handful of these have since displayed slight cometary activity, many of them remain inactive. Good examples are 5335 Damocles and 1996PW.

I think you've added something very important that actually confirms the theory. These have shown signs of cometary activity, and as in the extract above the distinction between comets and asteroids is blurring.


[edit on 8-1-2008 by squiz]