Comets Destroy Einstein's Nonsense

reply to post by Phage


I'm saying that there was not enough water detected either on the surface or in the debris of the impact to account for the amount of water released in the coma.

This is indisputable.

I call .5% surface "ice" to be a non-detection given the margin of error involved.

Therefore I also consider it MORE insane to believe water is somehow sublimating from comets and this is the cause of comet tails, since we now know this is impossible.

I also consider it more insane to believe this, since we now have direct imaging of comet nucleus which are BLATANTLY made out of solid rock.

They are not dirty snow balls.



[edit on 9-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1

The water comes from under the crust. The ice sublimates when heated by sunlight. The low albedo of the crust enhances the absorption of sunlight, providing energy for the sublimation. The sublimated gases (including water vapor) erupt as jets from the interior of the comet and form the coma.
stardust.jpl.nasa.gov...

You can tell by looking at images (grayscale, no less) what the composition of a comet is? Maybe you should apply for a job as an image analyst at NASA. They won't need all those spectrographs anymore.



[edit on 5/9/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

The water comes from under the crust. The ice sublimates when heated by sunlight. The low albedo of the crust enhances the absorption of sunlight, providing energy for the sublimation. The sublimated gases (including water vapor) erupt as jets from the interior of the comet and form the coma.
stardust.jpl.nasa.gov...

You can tell by looking at images (grayscale, no less) what the composition of a comet is? Maybe you should apply for a job as an image analyst at NASA. They won't need all those spectrographs anymore.



[edit on 5/9/2010 by Phage]

No, it does not come from under the surface.

You expect me to believe EPIC TONS OF WATER are somehow sublimating out from underneath the surface of solid rock?

The "jets" are not jets at all, they are plasma glow discharges.

They have all the characteristics of a glow discharge, not sublimating ice.

In fact, jets have been observed on the dark side of comets. It is ridiculous to assume that these "jets" are water vapor sublimating out from frozen rock.

Further, the "jets" are highly collimated. This is unexplainable by ice sublimation.



[edit on 9-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

It's true not enough water has been found to account for the snowball theory. They then tell us it's hidden beneath the surface, trust us.

Just to point out that water is only a problem for the standard model, it's inconsequential in the electric model.

I think every comet mission has shown that they are definately not what was expected and are full of surprises. At least from the dirty snowball angle.
This is true, to say they have lived up to or conformed to the standard theory is dillusional or simply a lie.

Here is just another one of the nails in the coffin.
Comet samples are surprisingly asteroid-like

Samples of Comet Wild 2 suggest it is made of rocky material, like an asteroid, rather than the fluffy dust expected of a comet.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by squiz]

reply to post by mnemeth1

Collimation of the jets strengthens the case for the source being subsurface. Collimation means that the particles on the inside regions of the jet have a greater velocity than those on the outer regions. This indicates that the source of the jets is a pressurized region (a result of sublimation of ices) beneath the surface. The material is being forced out through small openings in the surface, like water out of a hose.

Observations of the inner coma of Comet 19P/Borrelly with the camera on the Deep Space 1 spacecraft revealed several highly collimated dust jets emanating from the nucleus. The observed jets can be produced by acceleration of evolved gas from a subsurface cavity through a narrow orifice to the surface. As long as the cavity is larger than the orifice, the pressure in the cavity will be greater than the ambient pressure in the coma and the flow from the geyser will be supersonic. The gas flow becomes collimated as the sound speed is approached and dust entrainment in the gas flow creates the observed jets. Outside the cavity, the expanding gas loses its collimated character, but the density drops rapidly decoupling the dust and gas, allowing the dust to continue in a collimated beam. The hypothesis proposed here can explain the jets seen in the inner coma of Comet 1P/Halley as well, and may be a primary mechanism for cometary activity.

www.lpl.arizona.edu...

It has been suggested that cometary dust jets, as for example imaged by the Halley Multicolour Camera (HMC), possibly originate from vents, or crater-like surface features. Dust flow emitted from such indentations is collimated if compared to emission from a flat surface. Dust liberated from the bottom of a cometary “crater” emerges at the surface level (top of the crater) with a finite velocity. As a consequence these dust particles have a larger outward (radial) momentum than particles leaving the surrounding surface with zero initial velocity. The resultant collimation of dust trajectories (reduced opening angle of the dust jet) is calculated as a function of crater depth and physical parameters of the dust grains applying axisymmetric gas dynamic code. Fine structures observed by HMC in cometary dust jets can be modelled by emission from active regions with inactive centres. The decrease of pressure above the non-sublimating surface leads to a converging gas flow that concentrates larger particles in a radial filament.

Source



Somewhat similar to the jets from the surface of Enceladus. The collimation is a result of higher pressured material being forced through a vent.

It is the particle component of the plume that we can see in Cassini camera images of Enceladus that are backlit by the Sun; the particles separate into many distinct, collimated jets, which flow faster in a direction upward from Enceladus' surface than they spread out to the sides.

www.planetary.org...

reply to post by squiz

Wild 2 is an oddball but the real surprise about it was that the rocky material it contained originated in the inner Solar System. There was still plenty of ice.

What we found was remarkable! Instead of rocky materials that formed around previous generations of stars we found that most of the comet's rocky matter formed inside our solar system at extremely high temperature. In great contrast to its ice, our comet's rocky material had formed under white-hot conditions. Even though we confirmed Comets are ancient bodies with an abundance of ice, some of which formed a few tens of degrees above absolute zero at the edge of the solar system, we now know that comets are really a mix of materials made by conditions of both "fire and ice".

stardust.jpl.nasa.gov...

Learning all the time.
The water is there. It sublimates and forms the coma.


[edit on 5/9/2010 by Phage]

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]

The concept is so simple, it makes you wonder why the need for Einstein:

The sun produces charged particles in a constant field known as "solar wind" These particles, since they are charged, created a charged environment around the sun. If you are in a stable orbit, you don't notice this because the charge differential is stable.

However, if you take an object from further out, with a different amount of charge, and then fling it into the inner solar system, there becomes a destabilization of the charge between the object and its environment.

To stablize itself, the tail of the comet forms from plasma filaments as the comet discharges ions. The matter that is seen is superfine dust that is etched from the surface of the comet by the plasma.

I believe that a similar event is what messed up Mars. Imagine the electrical display from a much, much larger body than a comet, or how violent it would react with the inner, rocky planets if it got too close.

reply to post by Phage


I don't know who wrote that press release but he's blatantly lying.

sims.ess.ucla.edu...

astrochem.org/docs/Brownlee%20(2004)-Science.pdf

No proof of any ice on the surface

No proof of emitting vents where this supposed ice is ejecting from the core of the comet.

The comet is observed to be solid, with no explanation given as to why such a supposedly brittle comet does not produce debris.

No direct imaging of jet sources.

Nothing.

Its a joke.


[edit on 9-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by Phage


Collimation requires pressure.

Pressure blows off chunks of solid debris.

According to your BS theory, there is apparently a freaking frozen lake of ice encased in a pitch black rock - please explain how in the f#$#k this is possible.

Please explain why I should believe such a retarded theory.


So you're telling me that if I took a huge pile of sand and ice up into space, it would magically attract itself into a rock hard solid body with all the ice going to the inside while the sand solidified into rock around it?

That's what you are trying to sell me.

Do you really think I'm that dumb?

You insult me.

You should apologize for insulting my intelligence.



[edit on 9-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

It is not sufficient to find water merely in the comet's coma. Negative oxygen ions from cathodic etching of rock minerals in the nucleus will combine with protons from the solar wind to form water in the coma and tail. Spectra of comets already reveal the presence of negative oxygen ions. Moreover, the ions exhibit forbidden lines characteristic of a strong electric field. There is no conventional explanation for these observations.

-Wall Thornhill

Well you just have to look at the excellent pictures of Wild2 certainly doesn't look like a snowball, in fact once again it was quite a surprise.

New Scientist vol 181 issue 2430 - 17'January'2004, page 14

THE latest analysis of pictures taken by NASA's Stardust probe during its headlong plunge through comet Wild 2 on 2 January has revealed a big surprise: the comet's icy nucleus is covered in what look like impact craters.

In its first bulletin last week on the mission's findings, the Stardust team reported that the jets of gas producing the comet's spectacular coma and tail appear to be emanating from pits on the surface of the nucleus (New Scientist, 10 January, p 11).

Now the team has studied more detailed pictures from the probe and found that as well as sinkholes apparently caused by ice vaporising below the surface, the nucleus is covered in what look like well-preserved impact craters. That is completely unexpected because comets are believed to be loose aggregations of dust and ice that would shatter on impact.

"I don't think any of us ever really considered the possibility of impact craters," says Ray Newburn of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. If the pits are craters, the surface of the comet nucleus must be much stronger than experts thought. "It may be a well-cemented rubble pile, but it's definitely not a loose powdery surface," he says.

I think jets where active and yes surprisingly even on the unlit side.

Can sublimination and errupting volatiles create craters as seen on Wild2, steep walls flat bottoms etc.. ?

Holmes at one point had a coma larger than the sun itself! how does the tiny nucleus maintain this enormous sparse radial field against the solar wind ? With gravity?

[edit on 10-5-2010 by squiz]

Ok... for arguments sake... If we're talking about snowballs covered in rock here, or rock permeated by H2O, how long till that supply of H2O is exhausted?

Is there a method by which H20 is replenished?

Is it exhaustible and if so, what does that make the comet then?

Will the comet still have tail sans H2O and if it does, what's causing it? What's it made up of?

IRM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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.

It is seen here first people... Google will make you smarter than Einstein...proof positive!!!

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Ok... for arguments sake... If we're talking about snowballs covered in rock here, or rock permeated by H2O, how long till that supply of H2O is exhausted?

Is there a method by which H20 is replenished?

Is it exhaustible and if so, what does that make the comet then?

Will the comet still have tail sans H2O and if it does, what's causing it? What's it made up of?

IRM

No it gets exhausted...after millions and millions of years... thin tails of molecules at a time as they pass the sun boil off, and they do not always have their tails…the suns light waves pushes on it to create the tail.. Deeper in space they can continue to go on for billions of years. Halley’s comet on its 76 year orbit is suggested to last 10 million years.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Ok... for arguments sake... If we're talking about snowballs covered in rock here, or rock permeated by H2O, how long till that supply of H2O is exhausted?

Is there a method by which H20 is replenished?

Is it exhaustible and if so, what does that make the comet then?

Will the comet still have tail sans H2O and if it does, what's causing it? What's it made up of?

IRM

No it gets exhausted...after millions and millions of years... thin tails of molecules at a time as they pass the sun boil off, and they do not always have their tails…the suns light waves pushes on it to create the tail.. Deeper in space they can continue to go on for billions of years. Halley’s comet on its 76 year orbit is suggested to last 10 million years.

That's not quite right either.

According to standard theory, these things are sublimating the equivalent of a freaking Olympic swimming pool every 2 and half hours.

They are expecting us to believe that there is a literal sea of ice beneath a solid outer layer of rock, and that this supposed ice is shooting water vapor out of cracks in the rocks surface, yet we can't see where these "cracks" are in the comets surface.

Then they are expecting us to believe that this water vapor magically transforms in to OH ions at such a rapid rate that no experiment here on earth can duplicate it.

Then they expect us to believe that these ions magically wrap themselves around the comet creating magnetic fields intense enough to generate x-ray emissions.

The absolute absurdity of this theory can not be understated.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
That assumes the solar wind is the sole supplier of hydrogen. I think its safe to say comets are loaded with organics themselves. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume hydrogen ions are also supplied by the cometary body itself.

Why didn't these anhydrous 'organics' of yours react with the other compounds, the ones containing OH radicals, in the first place?

Where did the energy come from to cause that reaction now? Solar heating? In that case, your electric model is dead.

Do you know of any 'electrolytic' process that can occur (and which produces water) in the absence of an electrolyte? Could you explain how it could take place on a comet if a comet is a solid, electrically charged body? Where is your mechanism?

Also, you're not accounting for the possibility that comet ran into a dense CME cloud of ions.

Do the calculation above for a proton density that will produce the observed quantity of water from Hyakutake given the comet size and speed. You will find that a suitable proton density will be far higher than exists in space; the comet would be ploughing its way through a dense ionized gas-cloud, not a vacuum. If that were the case we'd have seen both the gas and friction effects on the orbit of the comet.

Also, since magnetic fields are infinite, they will draw in charged ions from across the entire solar system.

Against the solar wind?

At several billion times the speed of light?

Magnetic fields obeys an inverse square law with respect to field strength. Their infinite extent is purely theoretical.

Ions are charged particles by definition. Scientifically literate people not speak of 'charged ions'.

Sorry; this response of yours just isn't good enough. First, you're backpedalling, trying to offer other mechanisms for water production when recombination, your first and favourite, was debunked. Second, the shortfall you have to make up is twenty-three orders of magnitude; no small task to pull off.

ETA: Oops, almost forgot...

I've yet to see a plausible explanation by standard theorists for why comets should have such intense magnetic fields in the first place.

That's because they don't .

There is some cometary magnetism, true. What comets do contain are magnetic materials like iron and nickel, which respond to external magnetic fields such as the Sun's.

Near the nucleus of a comet, the general ubiquitous interplanetary magnetic field (~ 50 µGauss at 1 AU) gets compressed by the pressure of cometary static ions, to values ~ 50 nT (= 0.5 milliGauss) at 1 AU from the Sun (e.g. Spinrad et al. 1994). There is usually no need for an intrinsic cometary magnetic field attached to the cometary nucleus; all effects are extrinsic. Magnetic disturbances in the interplanetary magnetic field, due to the presence of comet Halley, have been measured by the spacecrafts Giotto (Mazelle et al. 1995), Vega I and Vega II (Mikhajlov and Maslenitsyn 1995).

- Observations of the Magnetic Fields Inside and Outside the Solar System by Jacques P. Valée, 1998, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada

[edit on 10/5/10 by Astyanax]

When comets are heated by the Sun, ice sublimes and is lost to space in a process known as outgassing. Some scientists have proposed that this material is coming from deep below the surface crust of the comet.

But temperature data from Tempel 1's nucleus suggests the material must be lost from only a few centimetres below the surface.

"The normal outgassing of the comet has been modelled by different people as coming from bare ice on the surface to subsurface ice that migrates through pores to escape, or from 40-50m below the surface," Deep Impact's chief scientist Mike A'Hearn told the BBC News website.

"I think it is clear from what we have here that the ice that is subliming is within the upper metre. Whether it's 5cm or 20cm below, I wouldn't want to say; but it's not below the top metre. That rules out a lot of the models."

news.bbc.co.uk...

Hmmm... seems to confirm that it does not come from hidden reserves beneath the surface at all. And we can't seem to find enough on the surface. As I said before water is only a problem for the current model. So far no comet nucleus has revealed any significant amounts of water, some have appeared bone dry.

here's what others said. about Tempel1.

New Scientist reports "the water ice is present in surprisingly small amounts, covering less than 1% of Comet Tempel 1's surface. The finding suggests the comet's surrounding cloud of gas and dust may largely be fed by underlying ices, rather than by gas streaming off its surface."
The technical report in the journal Science is more specific: "A surface area of 1.3 km2 of 100% water ice is therefore required to account for the ambient outgassing of water. The observed 0.5 km2 of 6% water ice, ~0.03 km2 of pure water ice, is significantly less than this. Thus, while they may be associated with natural outbursts, the water ice deposits detected on the surface of Tempel 1 reported here are not the dominant sources of outgassing. Therefore, assuming that the distribution of ice on the unobserved parts of the nucleus are broadly similar to those observed, the ambient outgassing observed for Tempel 1 likely has significant sub-surface sources."

They can't see it but it must be there right?. So which is it? According to the first interpretation it cannot be from under the surface.

They water they are implying In Hyakutake's case is hydrogen said to be released form UV interaction with H2O. In Hyakutake's case it was again quite a surprise, way more than expected.

The detector counts hydrogen atoms, an indirect measure of water vapor, by recording the intensity of a particular wavelength of ultraviolet light emitted by the atoms.

findarticles.com...

This was reported in Nature May 1986

"only indirect and sometimes ambiguous evidence in favor of water has been found; indeed, some facts appear to contradict this hypothesis." Thus, the authors suggest, "This problem requires further analysis and may indicate the existence of parents of OH other than H2O."

Can we really be so sure?

reply to post by mnemeth1


Comets

What the tails are and how they come about...

Of the observed gases and meteoric particles that are ejected to provide the coma and tails of comets, most of the gases are fragmentary molecules, or radicals, of the most common elements in space: hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. The radicals, for example, of CH, NH, and OH may be broken away from the stable molecules CH4 (methane), NH3 (ammonia), and H2O (water), which may exist as ices or more complex, very cold compounds in the nucleus. Another fact in support of the snowball theory is that the best-observed comets move in orbits that deviate significantly from Newtonian gravitational motion. This provides clear evidence that the escaping gases produce a jet action, propelling the nucleus of a comet slightly away from its otherwise predictable path. In addition, short-period comets, observed over many revolutions, tend to fade very slowly with time, as would be expected of the kind of structure proposed by Whipple. Finally, the existence of comet groups shows that cometary nuclei are fairly solid units.

Actual physical evidence, that is why we know so much...how many probes backup your theory?

Cometary bodies were investigated for the first time with spacecraft during the mid-1980s. In 1985 the U.S. probe known as the International Cometary Explorer (ICE) passed through the dust tail of Comet Giacobini-Zinner. The following year, spacecraft launched by Japan and the Soviet Union, along with the aforementioned Giotto probe of the European Space Agency (ESA), flew by Comet Halley, transmitting many useful data about its composition and sending photographs of its nucleus and coma.

So is the tail matter or electric? Must be solid electricity....hmm

A meteor shower is produced in the Earth's upper atmosphere when it passes through such a stream.

Some are small, and most do not get observable tails, but some are big....

In 1992 Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 broke apart into 21 large fragments as it ventured into the strong gravitational field of the planet Jupiter. During a week-long bombardment in July 1994, the fragments crashed into Jupiter's dense atmosphere at speeds of about 210,000 km/hr (130,000 mph). Upon impact, the tremendous kinetic energy of the comets was converted into heat through massive explosions, some resulting in fireballs larger than the Earth.

Snowball is just a funny name for something amazing and hard to explain to the layperson.....

reply to post by mnemeth1


As above, so below....
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b3a30a587edc.jpg[/atsimg]

I'm just saying...

Peace

Poor old Einstein...and the pre-Google era claims another victim. If only he could have the benefit of an all-night Googling session like today's leading scientists. Hell, he didn't even have Wikipedia. Well, I don't think he did. At least that's what some guy was saying on YouTube.

Originally posted by tigpoppa
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.

Why are you so offended? This is a great article and brings to light some very interesting points for us to discuss. Great stuff OP. Thanks for the info!