'Welease Wosetta!'

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:05 pm

querious wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote:The water mantra is still going on..

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space ... -ice_cycle

They see the traces of water on the surface as evidence for water under the surface.
The model shows a cycle of heating the interior of the comet.
If their model is correct, then according to common physics the comet should soon explode.

Why are they so blind for the obvious electrochemical processes? (caused by sun's solar wind)


As much as I was looking forward to this mission finally proving or disproving that cometary jets are electrical discharge phenomena, it is now abundantly clear there are 2 things sublimating: water ice, and electric comet theory.

The only thing that was still puzzling to me was the "crystalline silicates" found in comets, but then I found this paper...

Hot temperature minerals have been detected in a large number of comets and were also identified in the samples of Comet Wild 2 that were returned by the Stardust mission. Meanwhile, observations of the distribution of hot minerals in young stellar systems suggest that these materials were produced in the inner part of the primordial nebula and have been transported outward in the formation zone of comets. We investigate the possibility that photophoresis provides a viable mechanism to transport high-temperature materials from the inner solar system to the regions in which the comets were forming. We use a grid of time-dependent disk models of the solar nebula to quantify the distance range at which hot minerals can be transported from the inner part of the disk toward its outer regions as a function of their size and density. The particles considered here are in the form of aggregates that presumably were assembled from hot mineral individual grains ranging down to submicron sizes and formed by condensation within the hottest portion of the solar nebula. Our particle-transport model includes the photophoresis, radiation pressure, and gas drag. .... Our simulations suggest that irrespective of the employed solar nebula model, photophoresis is a mechanism that can explain the presence of hot temperature minerals in the formation region of comets.


Thanks for that reference. But the excerpt above doesn't explain what "Photophoresis" is.

It is briefly explained below:

"Photophoresis effects in Protoplanetary Disks: a numerical approach
Speaker
Nicolas Cuello 28 July 2014
Abstract @ http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/talks/archive/3540
It is thought that planets form in the inner regions of protoplanetary disks (PPD) about 1-10 AU. However, the migration of solids, in some cases sending them in a very short time onto the star, is a problem for planet formation, known as the radial-drift barrier. It is crucial to overcome this major difficulty in order to build up planet cores next to the star. Several effects have been proposed to invert the radial drift of the planetesimals (magnetic breaking, dead-zones, meridional flow, turbulence, particle traps, etc...). In this work, we explore the star radiation effect on the inner regions of PPD, namely photophoresis. It is a very promising phenomenon which has been poorly explored from the numerical point of view. Based on recent experiments of Duermann, Wurm and Kuepper, photophoresis (i.e. the thermal creep induced by the star irradiation) seems a good candidate. Indeed, they showed that its effects could revert the inward motion of meter-sized planetesimals at 1 AU in the disk. By means of a semi-analytical model, it can be shown that this force depends on the total size of the grain and on its porosity. We include this effect in our two-fluid (gas+dust) SPH code in order to explore whether or not this effect can break the radial-drift barrier. We run a series of numerical simulations for various disk configurations and grain sizes to assess its impacts on dynamics and growth."
----------
^^^^ Of course this mechanism for transport out to the alleged 1 LY distant "Oort Cloud" is only presumed. There are so many gaping flaws in this thinking that I don't even know where to begin listing them :idea: (not least of which is that nebular collapse is assumed a true event and that planetary cores overcome the alledged "the radial-drift barrier" and are then sent out from the star that formed via "collapse"--a contradictory and unaccounted for series of events).

First off (as I do know where to begin after all), why would tiny comets be singled out for this process--to then be transported 1 LY away? Such scrutiny reveals a leap of logic and reason.

Also, around the time of Stardust return sample analyses, some scientists proposed that the material may have been borne from "another star." What happened to that discussion?
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby querious » Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:56 pm

viscount aero wrote:Of course this mechanism for transport out to the alleged 1 LY distant "Oort Cloud" is only presumed.


Wild 2 has a period of only 6 years.

I'd be surprised if Oort Cloud comets also had these grains.
querious
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu Sep 24, 2015 10:47 pm

querious wrote:
viscount aero wrote:Of course this mechanism for transport out to the alleged 1 LY distant "Oort Cloud" is only presumed.


Wild 2 has a period of only 6 years.

I'd be surprised if Oort Cloud comets also had these grains.


Ok but comets are said to be formed very far away from the Sun. The Stardust findings contradicted this so they invented a way for the comet to form near or at the Sun--to then be flung out past the Kuiper Belt by a fantasy mechanism (photophoresis).

And apparently it was farther out not too long ago: "In 1983, it was reacquired as Comet 1983 XIV or 1983s at virtually the same location as predicted for it by the initial orbit solution. It is however a faint comet, rarely exceeding a brightness of +9.0 making it undetectable except with a telescope. Evidently, Wild 2 is one of only 10 known comets that has been significantly perturbed by Jupiter. It experienced a close encounter with Jupiter in 1974 at a distance of only 560,000 miles which evidently put it in its present orbit. Prior to that, the comet probably never got much inside the orbit of Mars and would have escaped detection."

Unless I don't understand mainstream comet theory, even at close distances, comets are claimed to be full of ice and formed "beyond Neptune." This would make blast furnace-created material findings contradictory.

What is further vexing is that the compositional isotope ratios of the Wild 2 samples revealed they were allegedly formed locally near the Sun as they resembled meteorite crystals. Yet they still insist that it was then "flung out" to the Oort Cloud then migrated back into the solar system's inner vicinity. I find that highly unbelievable. Too many things are assumed to have occurred--all very reaching.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17170292
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby querious » Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:34 pm

viscount aero wrote:Ok but comets are said to be formed very far away from the Sun. The Stardust findings contradicted this so they invented a way for the comet to form near or at the Sun--to then be flung out past the Kuiper Belt by a fantasy mechanism (photophoresis).


No, what they really said was this...

"Such a diversity of high- and low-temperature minerals requires a wide range of formation conditions, probably reflecting different formation locations. Many particles did not form in the cold environment and locations where cometary ices condensed.

Instead, they needed high temperatures to form, as well as complex and as yet little understood dynamical processes to end up where comets actually formed."

So, they never said the comets formed near the sun.

viscount aero wrote:And apparently it was farther out not too long ago: "In 1983, it was reacquired as Comet 1983 XIV or 1983s at virtually the same location as predicted for it by the initial orbit solution. It is however a faint comet, rarely exceeding a brightness of +9.0 making it undetectable except with a telescope. Evidently, Wild 2 is one of only 10 known comets that has been significantly perturbed by Jupiter. It experienced a close encounter with Jupiter in 1974 at a distance of only 560,000 miles which evidently put it in its present orbit. Prior to that, the comet probably never got much inside the orbit of Mars and would have escaped detection."

Unless I don't understand mainstream comet theory, even at close distances, comets are claimed to be full of ice and formed "beyond Neptune." This would make blast furnace-created material findings contradictory.

What is further vexing is that the compositional isotope ratios of the Wild 2 samples revealed they were allegedly formed locally near the Sun as they resembled meteorite crystals.


The likely explanation for the high-temp minerals is they formed near the sun, got transported out by photophoresis, then were accreted by forming comets.


viscount aero wrote: Yet they still insist that it was then "flung out" to the Oort Cloud then migrated back into the solar system's inner vicinity. I find that highly unbelievable. Too many things are assumed to have occurred--all very reaching.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17170292


The paper you linked to says...

"One refractory grain is (16)O-enriched, like refractory inclusions in meteorites, suggesting that Wild 2 contains material formed at high temperature in the inner solar system and transported to the Kuiper belt before comet accretion."

The Kuiper Belt is nowhere near as far out as the Oort Cloud, so not so unbelievable.
querious
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Sep 26, 2015 12:55 am

Thanks, querious, for your good rebuttals.

querious wrote:
viscount aero wrote:Ok but comets are said to be formed very far away from the Sun. The Stardust findings contradicted this so they invented a way for the comet to form near or at the Sun--to then be flung out past the Kuiper Belt by a fantasy mechanism (photophoresis).


No, what they really said was this...

"Such a diversity of high- and low-temperature minerals requires a wide range of formation conditions, probably reflecting different formation locations. Many particles did not form in the cold environment and locations where cometary ices condensed.

Instead, they needed high temperatures to form, as well as complex and as yet little understood dynamical processes to end up where comets actually formed."

So, they never said the comets formed near the sun.


There are several phenomena at play in these theories.
"Accretion" and transport is still part and parcel to the forming process. The high heat crystals ended up in the comet somehow--we agree on that.

Correct me if I am in error, they initially assumed that comets were formed in the Oort Cloud or thereabouts. Stardust contradicted this. So they had to revise their theory. They had to then find out how to combine or aggregate the cometary forming processes so they could account for the admixture of hot/cold materials.

The high heat materials had to somehow migrate out to vast distances regardless if they were comets or not--material that mysteriously resembles asteroids (meteorites). So now everything must have migrated back out and accreted? Or just comets? The storyline isn't fully believable if you consider the solar system's myriad "species" of objects.

querious wrote:The likely explanation for the high-temp minerals is they formed near the sun, got transported out by photophoresis, then were accreted by forming comets.


And in my opinion, that is a giant leap of assumption. Accretion cannot even happen. Explain the magical force that accretes things into tiny asteroid-like bodies en route, somehow, to the Oort Cloud.

querious wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Yet they still insist that it was then "flung out" to the Oort Cloud then migrated back into the solar system's inner vicinity. I find that highly unbelievable. Too many things are assumed to have occurred--all very reaching.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17170292


The paper you linked to says...

"One refractory grain is (16)O-enriched, like refractory inclusions in meteorites, suggesting that Wild 2 contains material formed at high temperature in the inner solar system and transported to the Kuiper belt before comet accretion."

The Kuiper Belt is nowhere near as far out as the Oort Cloud, so not so unbelievable.


Yes I know the the Kuiper Belt is nowhere near as far out as the Oort Cloud. The OC is said to be "1 LY" distant.

However, I don't have all the answers :|

But until the fantasy magical force that is behind the idea of accretion is explained (and nebular collapse which is the alleged precursor of same thing essentially), then accretion, the Oort Cloud, and mysterious transport of high heat crystals that ended up on comets (that accreted in or en route to the Oort Cloud) is suspect.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby querious » Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:47 pm

viscount aero wrote:But until the fantasy magical force that is behind the idea of accretion is explained (and nebular collapse which is the alleged precursor of same thing essentially), then accretion, the Oort Cloud, and mysterious transport of high heat crystals that ended up on comets (that accreted in or en route to the Oort Cloud) is suspect.


I'm not gonna try to convince you about accretion theory, but I just read a fascinating article that explains the formation of different regions of the solar system quite nicely....

http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/Comets-and-Asteroids/How-Asteroids-and-Comets-Formed.html
querious
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby moonkoon » Sun Sep 27, 2015 1:07 am

The "dirty snowball" is well on its way to biting the dust. :-)

... One of the big surprises of the Rosetta mission has been discovering just how dark 67P is: completely unlike an "dirty snowball", which was how astronomer Fred Whipple described comets in the 1950s. Although images from missions to other comets have shown surfaces that are more likely to be mixtures of ice and rock, findings from an instrument called the Visible and Infrared Thermal Imaging Spectrometer onboard Rosetta have shown that 67P is rocky and almost completely covered in a layer of organic compounds – which was not expected. So where is all the ice? ...

The article goes on to suggest that the majority of the water is below the surface, ...drowning in the dust. :-)

... In short, when parts of the comet are in shadow, it is cold enough for ice to form; when the sun shines on the surface, the ice disappears.
Yes, it might sound a bit obvious, but to dismiss this as "not exactly rocket science" is woefully unjust. The effects are not only on the surface, but extend to depths of several centimetres, leading to production of a layer where water could be active. ...


I'm not sure how they detect water, but if they are looking at hydrogen spectral lines, and given that organic compounds are present, perhaps the subliming/condensing that is observed is at least partly due to methane activity?
moonkoon
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:08 pm

Beginning with this post on the Rosetta Blog site, there is a discussion on the electron temperatures and other measurements, and how they are made and interpreted. I still haven't got it all straight in my head, but it seems there is much that is not certain.
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/10/09 ... ent-555417
What reveals itself to me ceases to be mysterious for me alone: if I unveil it to anyone else, he hears mere words which betray the living sense: Profanation, but never revelation.
~ Egyptian Proverbs
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2484
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:26 pm

Oxygen in the coma, lots of it.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... story.html

The paper.
http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nature15707
(pay-wall temporary disabled!)

O2 most abundant.
S and CH3OH are next.
The distribution is time and distance dependent.

My first impression is that some kind of electrolysis might be going on.. but still gotta read the paper.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby GaryN » Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:37 pm

Not a big surprise is it if the comet has a high silica content? Breaking the covalent bond is apparently made easier by the presence of the intense electric field of a microwave. I'm really out of my depth here though... :D
What reveals itself to me ceases to be mysterious for me alone: if I unveil it to anyone else, he hears mere words which betray the living sense: Profanation, but never revelation.
~ Egyptian Proverbs
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2484
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby ThunderIdeal » Sat Oct 31, 2015 1:51 am

The diurnal cycle of water ice on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 14869.html

(thanks to suspicious 0bservers for linking this)
User avatar
ThunderIdeal
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:36 pm
Location: Australia

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby jacmac » Sat Oct 31, 2015 8:27 am

From viscount aero :

photophoresis (i.e. the thermal creep induced by the star irradiation) seems a good candidate.

That's IT !

Tonight I can go to the Halloween party as a THERMAL CREEP.
jacmac
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby moonkoon » Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:58 pm

Zyxzevn:
Oxygen in the coma, lots of it


This O2 detection has the makings of a major upset for the solar system (and beyond?) formation model. The tentative conclusion is that the molecular Oxygen that has been detected must be primordial as the photolysis (low energy photon interaction) or radiolysis (high energy photon/particle interaction) of water (which, even though water doesn't appear to be a major component of the nucleus, is the only O2 source being considered) is not a viable mechanism to explain the amount of O2 that has been observed.

Oxygen suggests the presence of reducing conditions, or at least some way to exclude a small proportion of O2 from the more general oxidation that is evident from the overwhelming presence of oxides of Silicon, Iron, Magnesium, Aluminium etc.

The reduction of silicate (to free Silicon, ...and beyond? :-) ) as a source of the Oxygen is not under consideration. The snowball model may be hampering our understanding of what is being observed.
moonkoon
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

Anomalous Comet Dust

Unread postby moonkoon » Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:20 am

The following quotes are from Are fractured cliffs the source of cometary dust jets? Insights from OSIRIS/Rosetta at 67P.

From Pg 5
... With a mass of 1 x 10^13 kg and a density of 470 kg/cubic meter ... we obtain a effective gravity* of ... , typically .0004 m/s² at the cliff's foot. ...

and from Pg 8
... Dust velocities are measured by GIADA ... . The cumulative distribution shows a mean velocity equal to 3.75 m/s, [about] 4 times the escape velocity. The average dust density is 1900 kg/cubic meter. ...

Coincidentally the density of the dust (1900 kg/cubic meter) is also about four times greater than the comet's density (470 kg/cubic meter), ...which is similar to that of lightly packed or windblown snow (about 500 kg/cubic meter). The dust density is also somewhat less than that of Silicon dioxide (Quartz) which has a density of about 2600 kg/cubic meter (Silicon carbide is even denser at about 3200 kg/cubic meter). Silicate or carbide coated with ice would probably fit the bill, although ice, and fluffy ice at that, appears to be in short supply, ...on the surface of the comet at least. Note however that other silicate compounds such as Calcium silicate have a density of around 290 kg/cubic meter which is even less than the overall density of the nucleus. Not sure though how the comet might produce its relatively heavy dust from a Calcium silicate like compound, or if Calcium has been detected.

The paper also notes that the maximum angle of repose (slump angle) of unconsolidated surface material on comets and asteroids is about 30°. This is at the lower end of of slump angle values for various materials here in the earth's gravity field. The comet's gravity is of course substantially less than earth's gravity so one could expect a higher slump angle for a similar type of material on the comet, e.g. according to the wiki, on earth, snow which has a density similar to the comet, has a slump angle of 38°. So why don't we see steeper piles of sand/dust on the comet?

The other odd thing is the average velocity of the dust, 3.75 meter/sec (presumably that is relative to the comet). That seems to be a bit high for a heating/photolysis based process.

* In contrast, the earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s² and for the moon it is 1.6 m/s².
moonkoon
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Mar 11, 2016 9:16 am

ROSETTA FINDS MAGNETIC FIELD-FREE BUBBLE AT COMET

11 March 2016
ESA's Rosetta spacecraft has revealed a surprisingly large region around its host comet devoid of any magnetic field.


"We were able to detect the cavity, and on many occasions, because it is much bigger and dynamic than we had expected," adds Charlotte.

To investigate why the magnetic field-free cavity is so much bigger than predicted, Charlotte and her colleagues looked at measurements performed around the same time by other instruments, such as Rosetta's scientific camera, OSIRIS, and the Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis instrument, ROSINA, to verify whether any anomalous changes in the comet's activity could be pushing the cavity away from the nucleus.


They are refusing to recognize the variable charge dynamic of the comet body itself, and so are missing the obvious fact of a varying electric double-layer envelope, in interaction with the solar charge flows,
which also vary.


http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/57576-rosett ... -at-comet/
seasmith
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest