Electric Universe Strikes again! Comets destroy the standard model!

Originally posted by dragonridr
The answer to both those questions is exactly the same its called sublimation. As the gasses escape they cause escarpments ridges and explain topography perfectly. Also explains those whit outs as you call them go look at deep impacts website they have a moving animation as they go over the horizon you see its escaping gas. For some reason your either unaware of a decade of science or choose to be not sure which.

Sorry buddy, that's not how the standard theory of comets says erosion works on comets. However, if you want to throw the standard theory under the bus, be my guest.

The standard theory says the surface of comets is solid rock, with huge pockets of ice being trapped beneath the surface. Ice sublimates out of vents at great pressure, causing the observed discharges. Therefore, any surface erosion that occurs must be related to a vent that is discharging.

Do you see any vents discharging a fountain of gas under high pressure in those images? Go ahead and point them out to me, because NASA didn't find any. Only 0.5% of the surface was found to be ice. The whiteout areas are not discharging gas vents, that much is obvious, and I can cite NASA's own papers proving as much.

www.astro.umd.edu...

"Each of the jets appears to emanate from a dark spot (designated by letters a–d in the
third panel) adjacent to brighter material. In the fourth panel, regions where exposed
water ice was detected are overlaid in blue for comparison"

NASA thinks the jets come from dark spots. Obviously they are wrong, because the jets they are observing are actually coming from the adjacent white spots, which are plasma discharges. NASA correlates them with ice in the spectra due to the elctro-chemistry taking place between silicates and the electric discharge machining.

Remember, a vent must come from a hole in the rock. Therefore, it is impossible that a bright surface feature could be the source of a jet - at least according to the standard theory.

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by dragonridr
The answer to both those questions is exactly the same its called sublimation. As the gasses escape they cause escarpments ridges and explain topography perfectly. Also explains those whit outs as you call them go look at deep impacts website they have a moving animation as they go over the horizon you see its escaping gas. For some reason your either unaware of a decade of science or choose to be not sure which.

Sorry buddy, that's not how the standard theory of comets says erosion works on comets. However, if you want to throw the standard theory under the bus, be my guest.

The standard theory says the surface of comets is solid rock, with huge pockets of ice being trapped beneath the surface. Ice sublimates out of vents at great pressure, causing the observed discharges. Therefore, any surface erosion that occurs must be related to a vent that is discharging.

Do you see any vents discharging a fountain of gas under high pressure in those images? Go ahead and point them out to me, because NASA didn't find any. Only 0.5% of the surface was found to be ice. The whiteout areas are not discharging gas vents, that much is obvious, and I can cite NASA's own papers proving as much.

www.astro.umd.edu...

"Each of the jets appears to emanate from a dark spot (designated by letters a–d in the
third panel) adjacent to brighter material. In the fourth panel, regions where exposed
water ice was detected are overlaid in blue for comparison"

NASA thinks the jets come from dark spots. Obviously they are wrong, because the jets they are observing are actually coming from the adjacent white spots, which are plasma discharges. NASA correlates them with ice in the spectra due to the elctro-chemistry taking place between silicates and the electric discharge machining.

Remember, a vent must come from a hole in the rock. Therefore, it is impossible that a bright surface feature could be the source of a jet - at least according to the standard theory.

edit on 7/3/2013 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)

No please show me where the standard model says its rock?? Theres actually 4 types of asteroids theres c,s,d and v. So obviously the standard model says there is multiple compositions dependent on where it was created. Then they are covered in rubble do to impacts. If your going to try to convince people your right might pay to learn about comets. In fact theres a 5th type its from the ort cloud there just to distant to study so were still unclear on those.Just so you know i think your confusing asteroids and comets asteroids can be rocky and hi levels of metals. But under the theory of electric universe asteroids would have a tail also funny thing is they dont do they. Would make it easier trying to spot them if they did, but in electric universe a big chunk of metal roaming around the solar system and no tail strange huh???

Originally posted by dragonridr

No please show me where the standard model says its rock??

deepimpact.umd.edu...

Given that the spectrometer has a two dimensional detector, it is possible to make a map of Tempel 1 at the wavelength of the ice absorption bands. That map shows that the bright regions in the UV are correlated with dark regions in the near-IR where water ice absorbs light. 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.

So, only .5% surface ice - what do you think the other 99.5% is made out of? Are you going to tell me that obvious piece of heavily cratered rock is actually a marshmallow?

Of course, every comet nucleus that has been imaged has had no visible ice.

hypography.com...

Comet Borrelly has plenty of ice beneath its tar-black surface, but any exposed to sunlight has vaporized away, say scientists analyzing data from Deep Space 1, managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

"The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice," said Dr. Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geological Survey's Flagstaff, Ariz., station, lead author of a report on the Borrelly flyby results appearing in the online edition of the journal Science.

Hey, lets not forget Wild 2

www.astrobio.net...

Scientists thought most comets were "fluffy" snowballs -- piles of icy rubble that were loosely bound together. But Wild-2 has a solid, cohesive surface carved into lofty pinnacles, deep canyons and broad mesas.

"It's completely unexpected. We were expecting the surface to look more like it was covered with pulverized charcoal," says Donald Brownlee, a University of Washington astronomy professor and Stardust's principal investigator.

Go find me a comet nucleus that has been imaged that shows it's not a hard dry surface.

Here's a clue - you will not be able to find one.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


Again show me where it says its mostly rock deep impact scientists disagree with you so please show me where they said wow its a big chunk of rock??????? Thats not at all what anyone says i suggest you go look up what a comet is made of first thing youll find is why the surface looks rocky and might i add dusty.

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
Go find me a comet nucleus that has been imaged that shows it's not a hard dry surface.

In the vacuum of space, you won't find a liquid surface. Water (or any other volatile compound) is either frozen solid, or sublimated into gas. Also, I don't see why an icy surface can't have the topography seen in comets. Ice can have craters from impacts, cracks and ridges from quakes and other activity, etc.

On the other hand, could a dry rock that contains no volatiles create such huge comas and tails seen in comets? I'd like to see a lab experiment where a rock is placed in vacuum and made to create a coma and a tail.

Comets, having originated on the outer reaches of the Solar System, would naturally have high volatile content (what the astronomers call "ices" which isn't restricted to H2O but also includes methane, ammonia, and other compounds). If the moons of Jupiter and Saturn are icy, if Uranus and Neptune are "ice giants", and if the objects in Kuiper belt (including Pluto) are icy, why can't comets be icy?

The EU theory has a long, long way to go before it can "strike" and "destroy" the standard model.

Originally posted by wildespace
On the other hand, could a dry rock that contains no volatiles create such huge comas and tails seen in comets? I'd like to see a lab experiment where a rock is placed in vacuum and made to create a coma and a tail.

That's funny, because I'd like to see an experiment that shows photodisassociation can occur at the rates assumed by the standard cometary models.

Unfortunately I don't have a video of Dr. Franklin Anariba's lecture at the latest EU conference that I can link, where he goes into detail about how electrochemistry can produce the coma and tail seen in comets by bombarding silicates with electrons. However, his findings are mentioned in the OP video which you didn't bother to watch.

Franklin Anariba
www.sutd.edu.sg...

The same mechanism that the EU proposes creates comet tails is what standard theorists say creates OH and H2O2 in the martian atmosphere.

www.boulder.swri.edu...

"We investigate a new mechanism for producing oxidants, especially hydrogen peroxide
(H2O2), on Mars. Large-scale electrostatic fields generated by charged sand and dust in the
martian dust devils and storms, as well as during normal saltation, can induce chemical
changes near and above the surface of Mars. The most dramatic effect is found in the production of H2O2 whose atmospheric abundance in the “vapor” phase can exceed 200 times
that produced by photochemistry alone. With large electric fields, H2O2 abundance gets large
enough for condensation to occur, followed by precipitation out of the atmosphere."

Electrochemistry is a well developed field of study. We know with total certainty that it is possible for solid rock to discharge OH, and the other organic compounds seen in comets, through electrochemistry.

It's nice to see the standard theorists taking a page from the EU theory's playbook with that paper on martian electrochemistry. Indeed, EU theory says the martian "dust devils" are actually electrical discharge events. The EU theory's explanation for OH, H2O2 and other organics in the martian soil, is virtually identical to that paper. The only difference being the driver of what causes the electrical discharge in the dust storms.

Nice thread , latest of ISON ..

Hubble Telescope Captures Image of Comet ISON C/2012 S1

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by wildespace
On the other hand, could a dry rock that contains no volatiles create such huge comas and tails seen in comets? I'd like to see a lab experiment where a rock is placed in vacuum and made to create a coma and a tail.

That's funny, because I'd like to see an experiment that shows photodisassociation can occur at the rates assumed by the standard cometary models.

Your welcome to check out the math if you like.

dept.astro.lsa.umich.edu...

The same mechanism that the EU proposes creates comet tails is what standard theorists say creates OH and H2O2 in the martian atmosphere.



"We investigate a new mechanism for producing oxidants, especially hydrogen peroxide
(H2O2), on Mars. Large-scale electrostatic fields generated by charged sand and dust in the
martian dust devils and storms, as well as during normal saltation, can induce chemical
changes near and above the surface of Mars. The most dramatic effect is found in the production of H2O2 whose atmospheric abundance in the “vapor” phase can exceed 200 times
that produced by photochemistry alone. With large electric fields, H2O2 abundance gets large
enough for condensation to occur, followed by precipitation out of the atmosphere."

Electrochemistry is a well developed field of study. We know with total certainty that it is possible for solid rock to discharge OH, and the other organic compounds seen in comets, through electrochemistry.

It's nice to see the standard theorists taking a page from the EU theory's playbook with that paper on martian electrochemistry. Indeed, EU theory says the martian "dust devils" are actually electrical discharge events. The EU theory's explanation for OH, H2O2 and other organics in the martian soil, is virtually identical to that paper. The only difference being the driver of what causes the electrical discharge in the dust storms.

edit on 7/5/2013 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)

Wrong this has nothing to do with EU it has to do with static electricity caused when martian sand is blown into the air. Just like rubbing your feet on the carpet if the atmosphere is dry it creates static electricity which according to physics can be used to create ionized particles.Its called electrostatic modeling and mind you just a theory this actually occurs. Please tell me what this has to do with a comet???

Originally posted by dragonridr
Your welcome to check out the math if you like.

dept.astro.lsa.umich.edu...

That's not a readable paper, its just a bunch of slides. Further, I don't want theoretical math, I want to see a paper showing photodisassociation rates that match comets produced in a laboratory.

Originally posted by dragonridrWrong this has nothing to do with EU it has to do with static electricity caused when martian sand is blown into the air. Just like rubbing your feet on the carpet if the atmosphere is dry it creates static electricity which according to physics can be used to create ionized particles.Its called electrostatic modeling and mind you just a theory this actually occurs. Please tell me what this has to do with a comet???

Apparently you're not capable of understanding the paper I just showed you. I'm wasting my time arguing with you. You ignore the data provided by Franklin Anariba in the OP video, and you can't seem to grasp that the electrochemical processes that the EU theory says produces comet tails are the exact same processes put forth to explain the martian surface findings. They differ in location, but not in function.

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by dragonridr
Your welcome to check out the math if you like.

dept.astro.lsa.umich.edu...

That's not a readable paper, its just a bunch of slides. Further, I don't want theoretical math, I want to see a paper showing photodisassociation rates that match comets produced in a laboratory.

Originally posted by dragonridrWrong this has nothing to do with EU it has to do with static electricity caused when martian sand is blown into the air. Just like rubbing your feet on the carpet if the atmosphere is dry it creates static electricity which according to physics can be used to create ionized particles.Its called electrostatic modeling and mind you just a theory this actually occurs. Please tell me what this has to do with a comet???

Apparently you're not capable of understanding the paper I just showed you. I'm wasting my time arguing with you. You ignore the data provided by Franklin Anariba in the OP video, and you can't seem to grasp that the electrochemical processes that the EU theory says produces comet tails are the exact same processes put forth to explain the martian surface findings. They differ in location, but not in function.

edit on 7/5/2013 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)

So your saying that the conditions are the same on mars as they are on a comet? I read your paper i have a feeling your not understanding what there trying to tell you. Oh and dont ever try to prove your point with an internet video i saw one showing how to levitate anybody can make a video. Now back to what that paper was trying to explain.

Here is the actual scieticfic paper published its called Martian dust devil electron avalanche process and associated electrochemistryntific

It discusses how plasma can be created through the effects of static electricity in a dust storm. Funny thing is it happens here on earth just ask a bedouin living in the desert its well known sand can cause static electricity. The paper your quoting discusses the effects of static electricity on the martian atmosphere. How ever problem becomes comets dont have an atmosphere until after sublimation occurs then it starts getting blown away. And technically thats not really an atmosphere either its gasses escaping so please explain how the two are related?

Oh and heres a link if you want to look at some real science see even though you obviously have no idea what your talking about i didnt go im not going to even bother with you like you did. Since its obviously better to try to teach someone if theres something they do not know . So feel free to educate me im sure my class would be interested.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

reply to post by dragonridr


You asked how it was possible for a solid piece of rock to emit the coma of a comet.

I just showed you how it was possible through electrochemical interactions.

If you can't put two and two together, it's not worth continuing this conversation with you.

Obviously comets do not have atmospheres, but if EU theory is correct, then obviously electrochemical interactions with the rock can produce the coma, which is what this entire thread is all about. You don't need an atmosphere to have electrochemical interactions. They can happen in a complete vacuum.

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
reply to post by dragonridr

 

You asked how it was possible for a solid piece of rock to emit the coma of a comet.

I just showed you how it was possible through electrochemical interactions.

If you can't put two and two together, it's not worth continuing this conversation with you.

Obviously comets do not have atmospheres, but if EU theory is correct, then obviously electrochemical interactions with the rock can produce the coma, which is what this entire thread is all about. You don't need an atmosphere to have electrochemical interactions. They can happen in a complete vacuum.

edit on 7/5/2013 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)

So you concede you put information out there that has nothing to do with comets since you admit they dont have an atmosphere. And then you go further and say that charged protons is going to cause a chemical reaction in a rock?? Ok please provide some research that shows rock turning into a gas. You realize the paper you showed was discussing plasma so please tell me how these plasmas form on a comet ? Please show me an experiment in a lab that confirms your theory unlike the last one which quite frankly you were being disingenuous.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
reply to post by dragonridr

 

You asked how it was possible for a solid piece of rock to emit the coma of a comet.

I just showed you how it was possible through electrochemical interactions.

If you can't put two and two together, it's not worth continuing this conversation with you.

Obviously comets do not have atmospheres, but if EU theory is correct, then obviously electrochemical interactions with the rock can produce the coma, which is what this entire thread is all about. You don't need an atmosphere to have electrochemical interactions. They can happen in a complete vacuum.

edit on 7/5/2013 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)

So you concede you put information out there that has nothing to do with comets since you admit they dont have an atmosphere. And then you go further and say that charged protons is going to cause a chemical reaction in a rock?? Ok please provide some research that shows rock turning into a gas. You realize the paper you showed was discussing plasma so please tell me how these plasmas form on a comet ? Please show me an experiment in a lab that confirms your theory unlike the last one which quite frankly you were being disingenuous.

People who can read will understand the paper I linked and why it applies to comets in an electric universe. I'm done trying to explain it to you. Talking to you is like talking to a wall.

OK please show some research of a rock ionizing into a gas

Well, the Curiosity Rover carries a laser that ionizes rock for analysis....

No real need for any research here:

"For hundreds of years people have known about the therapeutic properties of salt crystal and have used it for healing and air purification, according to the Poland Chamber of Commerce. Salt crystal is a natural ionizer, producing negative ions that bind to particles in the air and cause them to fall to the ground, creating purer air quality. Various experiments, such as studies performed by Dr. Albert P. Krueger and Dr. Richard F. Smith at the University of California on allergens and cancer research, show that the process of ionization can benefit health and well-being." ( Disclaimer: If you read that last line carefully, you will notice that they do not say that experiments show rock salt candles ionizing, simply the ions themselves have a beneficial effect)

Now, you can go online and find claims from various researchers claiming that there is no way that these things are producing ions or they would be leaking chlorine gas, but those same claimants have done no research into it at all that I can tell. They simply redirect you to issue after issue of semi related got ya's and never really say anything of their own.....

Misdirecting to technicality after technicality is how you deal with small minded people in politics or in a court room and has no place here. If you were truly interested in sharing information and trying to discover the truth of something, one would not rely on technicalities to vindicate themselves.


Additionally, I find the idea of "rubble due to impacts" on a comet or asteroid mostly a joke. It is really painful to here people make this claim. We have many videos of small objects being impacted in space from, satellite collisions, small asteroid collisions.... NOT ONCE does the debris magically settle back onto the object....

It's beyond ridiculous, we have rocks from mars blown out to space here on earth, there is substantial gravity on mars especially when compared to a small asteroid, you're going to tell me that the debris settled right back down into the impact crater or onto the object anywhere at all? Leaving no ambient debris? Seriously?

You can't possibly have even stopped to think about that claim, so all the features we see on a comet are due to impact....sure that's why they stay on predictable orbits, after they make some unseen collision in the very dense region of space known as the outer solar system (man you can hardly even move out there without running into a rock), the space squirrels inside the comets use their supply or frozen water asteroid jet fuel to get the rocks back on track so they can visit earth to steal more nuts...




You going to try to tell me that these small objects would be unaffected in their orbitals from not only randomly gassing vents, but also impacts with other bodies? Get real.

Originally posted by vind21

OK please show some research of a rock ionizing into a gas

Well, the Curiosity Rover carries a laser that ionizes rock for analysis....

No real need for any research here:

"For hundreds of years people have known about the therapeutic properties of salt crystal and have used it for healing and air purification, according to the Poland Chamber of Commerce. Salt crystal is a natural ionizer, producing negative ions that bind to particles in the air and cause them to fall to the ground, creating purer air quality. Various experiments, such as studies performed by Dr. Albert P. Krueger and Dr. Richard F. Smith at the University of California on allergens and cancer research, show that the process of ionization can benefit health and well-being." ( Disclaimer: If you read that last line carefully, you will notice that they do not say that experiments show rock salt candles ionizing, simply the ions themselves have a beneficial effect)

Now, you can go online and find claims from various researchers claiming that there is no way that these things are producing ions or they would be leaking chlorine gas, but those same claimants have done no research into it at all that I can tell. They simply redirect you to issue after issue of semi related got ya's and never really say anything of their own.....

Misdirecting to technicality after technicality is how you deal with small minded people in politics or in a court room and has no place here. If you were truly interested in sharing information and trying to discover the truth of something, one would not rely on technicalities to vindicate themselves.


Additionally, I find the idea of "rubble due to impacts" on a comet or asteroid mostly a joke. It is really painful to here people make this claim. We have many videos of small objects being impacted in space from, satellite collisions, small asteroid collisions.... NOT ONCE does the debris magically settle back onto the object....

It's beyond ridiculous, we have rocks from mars blown out to space here on earth, there is substantial gravity on mars especially when compared to a small asteroid, you're going to tell me that the debris settled right back down into the impact crater or onto the object anywhere at all? Leaving no ambient debris? Seriously?

You can't possibly have even stopped to think about that claim, so all the features we see on a comet are due to impact....sure that's why they stay on predictable orbits, after they make some unseen collision in the very dense region of space known as the outer solar system (man you can hardly even move out there without running into a rock), the space squirrels inside the comets use their supply or frozen water asteroid jet fuel to get the rocks back on track so they can visit earth to steal more nuts...

You going to try to tell me that these small objects would be unaffected in their orbitals from not only randomly gassing vents, but also impacts with other bodies? Get real.

edit on 8-7-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)

What i want to see is how solar wind is suppose to ionize rock problem is there is no such scientific paper. You can compare a laser using 30 million watts to ionize rock to a comet. Problem with the comet is that energy just isnt there and there is no way to produce enough static electricity to ionize any rock. When we ionize rock using electricity it heats the rock glowing red causing it to release any trapped gasses yet we dont see this on the comet do we. It should have been off the charts on temperature readings and lit up in the ir spectrum but they arent are they???

Hi,

I'm new, but if I try to have an objective look at the whole thing, it is IMHO clear that both theories could be right.
And it is very hard to determine the truth, due to obvious reasons.

But as has been said before, and I'm also a proponent of this:
* Occam's razor is usually right
* Always chose the model with the best predictability, for this is very probably the right one.

In the light, that NASA was baffled upon the deep impact results and the fact that the PC proponents exactly predicted them, gets at least me to the conclusion, that it is much more likely that the Plasma Cosmology is right on this case than the standard model.

In the end a theory is only as good as it's capability for future predictions, and as it seems exactly there the standard model is lacking.

Originally posted by hulli
Hi,

I'm new, but if I try to have an objective look at the whole thing, it is IMHO clear that both theories could be right.
And it is very hard to determine the truth, due to obvious reasons.

But as has been said before, and I'm also a proponent of this:
* Occam's razor is usually right
* Always chose the model with the best predictability, for this is very probably the right one.

In the light, that NASA was baffled upon the deep impact results and the fact that the PC proponents exactly predicted them, gets at least me to the conclusion, that it is much more likely that the Plasma Cosmology is right on this case than the standard model.

In the end a theory is only as good as it's capability for future predictions, and as it seems exactly there the standard model is lacking.

edit on 16-7-2013 by hulli because: (no reason given)

Yeah electric universe was predicting comet ison was going to cause a global catastrophe destroying earth.So much for that prodiction were still here.

reply to post by hulli


You can't base whole cosmology model on a single comet prediction. From my post earlier: "Quite apart from the topic of comets, the EU aims to sweep most of modern science under the rug, and replace it with its own "cosmology" which is full of vague statements and hand-waving. The Sun is a glow discharge of galactic currents. Craters on the Moon, and the Valles Marineris on Mars were formed by gigantic discharges and electric machining. Planets orbit the Sun due to electromagnetism, not gravity. Drawings by ancient people show gigantic plasma discharges in the sky. Venus was a comet. The list goes on."

Have you read this? dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk...