Comets Destroy Einstein's Nonsense

knol.google.com...

• All comet nuclei that have been directly observed have proven to be rocky with no visible water present on the surface.[51][52][53][54][55] The so-called "jets" of comets are observed to be highly collimated.[55] The dust of comets is observed to be extremely fine.[52] Samples of comet dust show particles that have undergone intense heating.[56] The impact excavation of Tempel 1 show no water ice beneath the surface.[52] These observations refute the standard theory of comets being a dirty snowball ejecting sub-surface water ice and dust via sublimation.

Further, direct observation of water in space show it to undergo instantaneous boiling followed by instantaneous freezing into micron sized ice particulates (desublimation). If water vapor itself was being sublimated on comets we should expect to see actual ice crystals in cometary comas, not ionized water and organics. No in situ experiment has ever demonstrated how or why sublimated water ice in space should undergo instantaneous ionization. Desublimation is what occurs to water vapor in space, not sublimation.[57] The end result of ice "melting" from a comet should be extremely fine solid ice crystal particulates - this is not observed in comets. Waste water ejected from spacecraft instantaneously desublimates, it does not magically ionize into a glowing plasma coma.

Comets are also observed to emit x-rays and have filamentary tails. This is unexplained by the standard model, yet these observations were predicted by cosmologists that took electric forces into account. Supporting articles from a wide range of sources can be found here.[58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66]

• All comets observed falling into the Sun or passing very near the Sun have subsequently been followed by coronal mass ejections, some of which actually "disconnected" the tails of comets from the nucleus. This is not explained at all by the idea a comet is a dirty snowball, yet this is well explained by electric cosmology’s view of comets. Also, comets have observed to brighten at distances too far from the Sun to possibly be attributed to sublimating ice. This too is explained well by electric cosmology’s view of comets.[67][68]

Further, magnetic reconnection is invoked to explain tail "disconnection" events and other obvious electrical phenomena observed in comets. As was demonstrated in a previous point, magnetic reconnection violates conservation laws in physics and is nothing more than a blatant reification of MHD simulations.

There's nothing left for standard theorists to explain comets except pure fantasy.

They are obviously electrical in nature.



[edit on 7-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

what do yo mean they are obviously electrical in nature? they have electricity inside them?

or that them passing though radiation/other light at speed. creates or collects electricity/megnetic feild.

or something else.

i understood most of the article but this.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by MR BOB]

Originally posted by MR BOB
what do yo mean they are obviously electrical in nature? they have electricity inside them?

or that them passing though radiation/other light at speed. creates or collects electricity/megnetic feild.

or something else.

i understood most of the article but this.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by MR BOB]

It means there is only one way to explain the observations.

A charged body discharging in an electric field.

That means an electric sun and a charged comet.

The findings demonstrate that comets are not made out of water and dust, they are made out of rock. They discharge a plasma coma because they are rapidly trying to equalize their charge with the surrounding electrical environment.

Comets have no water on them.



[edit on 7-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

why is this even in the science forum?

now people can post a part of a paper, make some lewd commentary and its a valid post?

What are you saying that einstein is proved wrong? If he is its no big deal that is how science works. New ideas build off of old ones.

If your claim is that comets are made of electricity then you are wrong and should look up the different forms comets occur in as well as what makes a comet a comet. You sound as if your interested in the subject and that is good, please take time to look up more material so you can understand the authors message in the article you posted. his message is not to disprove einstein at all, that is something you concocted on your own. Though throgh diligence you can master your knowledge of science!!

WITH SCIENCE!!!! anything is possible, just wait until i get a green light for my project on dinosaurs with frickin laser beams.

reply to post by tigpoppa


What, you don't like real science?

Comets
Reference Web Site

Deep Impact: Excavating Comet Tempel 1
A'Hearn M. F. ,et al. ,Science, Vol. 310, pp.258-264, 14 October 2005

Observations of Comet 19P/Borrelly by the Miniature Integrated Camera and Spectrometer Aboard Deep Space 1
Soderblom L.A. ,et al. ,Science, Vol. 296. no. 5570, pp. 1087 - 1091, May 2002

Surface of Young Jupiter Family Comet 81P/Wild 2: View from the Stardust Spacecraft
Brownlee, D. E. ,et al. ,Science, Vol 304, pp.1764-1769, 18 June 2004

Stardust encounters comet 81P/Wild 2
Tsou P, et al. ,J. Geophys. Res.,Vol. 109, E12S01, 2004

Comet 81P/Wild 2 Under a Microscope
Brownlee D. ,et al. ,Science, Vol 314 ,15 December 2006

Heat and mass transfer and duration of the desublimation of water vapor in vacuum
Andreev E. F. and Lebedev D. P. , J. Eng. Thermophys, Vol. 27, No. 2, August 1974

Deep Impact Mission Results
UMD Deep Impact Team Web Site

Comet Borrelly: Dry and Hot
Beatty J. K. ,Sky and Telescope, 23 July 2003

Rockhard Stardust
Mullen L. ,Astrobiology Magazine, 17 June 2004

Deep Impact Was a Dust-up, Not a Gusher
CFA Release No.: 2005-23, 8 July 2005

Swift Detects X-Ray Emissions from Comets
O'Neill I. ,Universe Today, 3 December 2008

Synchronic Bands in Dust Tail of Comet Hale-Bopp
Watanabe J. ,National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Press Release

The Electric Comet
Thorhill W., Talbot D. ,Poster Presentation, IEEE 33rd ICOPS, Traverse City Michigan, 4-8 June 2006

Predictions on “Deep Impact”
Thunderbolts Team Predictions Web Site

On the theory of comet tails.
Alfven H. ,Tellus, 9, 92 (1957)

First Direct Observation Of The Interaction Between A Comet And A Coronal Mass Ejection Leading To A Complete Plasma Tail Disconnection
Vourlidas A. ,et al. ,ApJ, 668: L79–L82, 10 October 2007

Passing Comet in Suprise Flare-Up, Visible To Naked Eye
Borland J. ,Wired Magazine, 25 October 2007

reply to post by mnemeth1


Are you a fan of the electrical universe mnemeth1?

Personally, i think it explains a lot more about the universe than many of the current theories.

IRM

reply to post by InfaRedMan


Indeed I am.

I'm not a physicist. I read science news and if an idea floats my boat I'll read more about it and gain more insight. Maybe I'll draw a conclusion or maybe I'll wander off and think about it. The Electric Universe theory isn't anywhere near a consensus in astrophysics. It's considered fringe by some and not considered at all by most.

There's an 'electric universe' explanation for the Moon craters. Plasma discharge and arcing current is supposedly the cause of them. I'm going off recall and might be mistaken...

They claimed the Moon's craters are caused by the discharge and arcing. The article used an argument of incredulity to illustrate a lack of impact debris in the craters. No debris? It MUST be electrical! IIRC it also spent a long time seeking to criticise mainstream science as a status quo and *probably* a 'paradigm.'

The article did more to undermine the 'electric universe theory' in my mind than anything else. We've seen multiple impacts on Jupiter and Saturn. Craters and debris on Earth. Lots of evidence that material objects strike planets and moons to create craters.

On the other hand, where is the evidence of arcing discharge creating craters? Are there any astronomical reports of these events in history? Is there any record in the last 4000 years of written history that relates anything similar to an arcing phenomena causing craters? Is there a single witnessed event of anything similar?

I'm just asking.

reply to post by Kandinsky


In a lab, a plasma arc that excavates material from a surface will form a crater with a central bump in the middle of it.

Plasma cosmology does not make the claim that all cratering is a process of electrical excavation. However, it does claim that most observed large scale planetary cratering is due to electrical exchanges, not impacts.

There's a lot of evidence in support of this theory if you take the time to look at it.

For example, Plasma cosmology says comets and asteroids are rocks that were blasted off the surface of planets from inter-planetary electrical discharges - they did not form in the depths of space.

If we look at these body, we can see they are heavily cratered. Some have impact craters so huge that there is no plausible way to explain them. If they were impacted by such a large object, it should have destroyed the asteroid entirely.

Further, looking at the Shoemaker impact on Jupiter, the results were entirely unexpected and unexplainable by standard impact theory.

You can read more layman's explanations here:

Craters
www.thunderbolts.info...

Earth Geology
www.thunderbolts.info...

Dendritic Ridges
www.thunderbolts.info...

I went to Physics college, didn't get the degree because I had some issues by the end of the last year, but I got the gist. Went through all the basics of Physics Mathematics, up to general relativity....

Now, I am halfway through the video Thunderbolts of the Gods, which explains [most?] of the "electric universe theory", and man: it's really mind bending.



Peace

Originally posted by Sator
I went to Physics college, didn't get the degree because I had some issues by the end of the last year, but I got the gist. Went through all the basics of Physics Mathematics, up to general relativity....

Now, I am halfway through the video Thunderbolts of the Gods, which explains [most?] of the "electric universe theory", and man: it's really mind bending.



Peace

I had the same reaction the first time I watched it.

I nearly fell out of my chair and immediately began Googling all of their claims.

....




I haven't stopped Googling yet.


Everything cosmologist tell us is one big fat gigantic lie.



[edit on 7-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1



or they just didn't know and so they made an educated guess.. Cool stuff. I'm going to read more in depth now But makes sense, so Mr. scientist you are telling me these comets have been around melting for millions of years throwing out ice an dust for millions of years.... wow they must have been huge at one point then huh Mr. Scientist haha, thanks for the OP.

I watched thunderbolts of the gods and it really made a lot of sense, especially when they were talking about comets.

Thanks for your post mnemeth1,

Is this a static electromagnetic force that occurs as Comets near Stars. Very interesting.

Why is the Tempel 1 (correct spelling) data from the Keck telescope ignored?

The combined observations show a complex mix of silicates, water and organic compounds beneath the surface of the comet. These materials are similar to what is seen in another class of comets thought to reside in a distant swarm of pristine bodies called the Oort Cloud. Oort Cloud comets are well preserved fossils in the frozen suburbs of the solar system that have changed little over the billions of years since their formation. When they are occasionally nudged gravitationally toward the Sun they warm up and release a profuse amount of gas and dust on a one-time visit to the inner solar system.

Water and other volatiles were ejected from the impact site for a long while after the impact.

“These observations give us the best glimpse yet at what’s under the dusty skin of a comet,” said David Harker of the University of California, San Diego who led the Gemini team. “Within an hour of impact, the comet’s glow was transformed and we were able to detect a whole host of fine dusty silicates propelled by a sustained gas geyser from under the comet’s protective crust.

keckobservatory.org...


Here is a detailed report on the results.

If warmed sufficiently, their surface ices sublimate and escaping gases can entrain small dust particles, together forming the often spectacular tails of dust and ionized gas seen from Earth

www.umsl.edu...

[edit on 5/7/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by graaly

you are telling me these comets have been around melting for millions of years throwing out ice an dust for millions of years

No.
Some comets only make one trip. Others have orbital periods of thousands of years so don't get warmed up very often. Some have not yet been close enough to the sun to get warmed up at all.

Sometimes these very long period comets get their orbits messed up and end up in a stable short period orbit (like Halley's). Eventually short period comets either hit something (like Jupiter, or eek, Earth), evaporate to the point where they lose all of their volatile material, just kind of fall apart, or get tossed out of the Solar system by a close encounter with one of the large planets. In any case they probably don't last much more than half a million years.

spaceguard.iasf-roma.inaf.it...

[edit on 5/7/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
Why is the Tempel 1 (correct spelling) data from the Keck telescope ignored?

The combined observations show a complex mix of silicates, water and organic compounds beneath the surface of the comet. These materials are similar to what is seen in another class of comets thought to reside in a distant swarm of pristine bodies called the Oort Cloud. Oort Cloud comets are well preserved fossils in the frozen suburbs of the solar system that have changed little over the billions of years since their formation. When they are occasionally nudged gravitationally toward the Sun they warm up and release a profuse amount of gas and dust on a one-time visit to the inner solar system.

Water and other volatiles were ejected from the impact site for a long while after the impact.

“These observations give us the best glimpse yet at what’s under the dusty skin of a comet,” said David Harker of the University of California, San Diego who led the Gemini team. “Within an hour of impact, the comet’s glow was transformed and we were able to detect a whole host of fine dusty silicates propelled by a sustained gas geyser from under the comet’s protective crust.

keckobservatory.org...


Here is a detailed report on the results.

If warmed sufficiently, their surface ices sublimate and escaping gases can entrain small dust particles, together forming the often spectacular tails of dust and ionized gas seen from Earth

www.umsl.edu...

[edit on 5/7/2010 by Phage]

I wonder if there was a gaseous reaction between the Copper bullet and the hydrogen sulphide in that Comet, it almost begs the question that the bullet should have been made out of something else...like a a ??

Originally posted by smurfy

I wonder if there was a gaseous reaction between the Copper bullet and the hydrogen sulphide in that Comet, it almost begs the question that the bullet should have been made out of something else...like a a ??

There was no "gas" geyser, that's pure supposition on the part of the Keck research team.

What they saw were broad changes in the comet spectrum indicating a large increase in organics.

What they see as a light spectrum of water is not "water" as you think of it, its ionized water vapor with a color temperature of thousands degrees kelvin.

The standard theory of comets says that comets are made out of ice, with a dirty layer of rock covering them (which is ridiculous in itself), so what the research team was expecting from the impact was a huge increase in the spectrum of H2O coming from the comet.

They didn't see that.

Here's what they did see:

"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. "

"Theories about the volatile layers (water ice) below the surface of short-period comets are going to have to be revised"

"All we needed was a factor of three boost from the impact to get a definite detection [of water ice beneath the surface]," said Qi. "We didn't see that."

"It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher," said SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). "The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven't materialized, at least not yet."

"There's a lot of structure on the comet, which is a bit surprising," Richardson said. "That could mean there's some strength to the comet."


[edit on 7-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1

It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher," said SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). "The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven't materialized, at least not yet.

www.cfa.harvard.edu...
"Not yet". That press release was from July 8,2005, four days after the impact.

Your addition of "[of water ice beneath the surface]", to Qi's statement is disingenuous and deceptive. He did not say that and he was not speaking only of water ice, he was speaking of volatile compounds.

SMA measurements corroborate the SWAS findings. Although the SMA wasn't tuned to frequencies of water emission, which are difficult to observe from the ground due to atmospheric water vapor, it watched for other chemicals such as hydrogen cyanide. SMA astronomers saw little increase in production of gases following the impact. Gas production rates remained so low that they could set only an upper limit on the total.

"All we needed was a factor of three boost from the impact to get a definite detection," said Qi. "We didn't see that."

"The big picture will emerge once astronomers meld data from different observatories at different wavelengths," said Melnick.

Keck got that factor of three immediately after the impact.
www.umsl.edu...

The observations from Keck and other telescopes provided the data necessary to confirm a marked increase in water and other volatiles, as compared to preimpact levels, for a sustained period following the impact. An increase consistent with an icy interior covered by dust and small rocky particles (not a "rocky layer").

Yes, the amount of ice found on the surface of the comet was slight. Therefore the water vapor and other volatiles found in the coma (and produced by the impact) must come from beneath the surface. The results from Keck demonstrate that Comets are dirty balls composed of water and other ices which sublimate when they are warmed by the Sun, creating the coma, a cloud of dust and gas (including water vapor).

[edit on 5/7/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


I believe you are the one taking things way out of context.

Lets add the line right above where you left off:

"SWAS operators were puzzled by the lack of increased water vapor from Tempel 1. Post-impact measurements showed the comet was releasing only about 550 pounds of water per second-an emission rate very similar to pre-impact values, and less than seen by SWAS during natural outbursts in the weeks before the impact."

And Qi was specifically talking about WATER, he was not talking about organics. Its clear when you read the full article exactly what he was talking about.

Where in that paper do you see a 3 factor increase of H2O?

Please quote me the line.

I'm looking at the data now, thanks for linking it to me. Because it goes totally against what you are saying.

"The water column numbers extracted
from these postimpact mean spectra are in
agreement (within their confidence limits), and
they are larger than the preimpact column
number for H2O by about a factor of 2"

2 is less than 3 last time I checked.

Bear in mind 3 is the LEAST POSSIBLE amount necessary to validate the "dirty snowball" model, they were expecting a far greater jump than that.

Further, in looking at the data, H2O was down to a factor of 1.5 just 24 minutes after impact. As the article states, it dropped rapidly down to pre-impact levels there after.

No water.

This whole business of calling H2O spectral lines "water" is misleading as well. This is highly ionized extremely hot plasma we are talking about here that was generated from the impact.

Quoting the NASA science team on the impact spectrum:

"The temperature of water and carbon dioxide in the modeled spectrum is 1400 K, though values between 1000 K and 2000 K are also valid. This is hot material from the vapor plume."

The "water" we see coming off of comets is not water at all, its ionized plasma.

Given that the comets are traveling in the heliosphere which is jam packed with hydrogen ions, the signiture of H2O spectral lines does not automatically mean water is being released by the comet. It means H2O IONS IN A PLASMA are being emitted in the plasma coma of the comet.

How these ions are formed can be from the electrical discharge itself, having absolutely nothing to do with sublimating ice.


[edit on 7-5-2010 by mnemeth1]