'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 » Tue Jun 23, 2015 8:56 pm

Regulus wrote:Just a comment on mission cameras and their returns.
Malin Space Science, owned my the Australian, David Malin, often has 'there' camera's on board on missions as private science contractors. But because it is 'private enterprise' it allows the images to be kept, and stored, for long periods of time before release to the public. If ever. It's a clever work around that NASA started using so that the visual information can be kept from the public, given that they are ostensibly a government body with obligations to the American public, this was a way to hold on to the info.

Trevor

You are correct.

This ethos pervades all of government by the way--to circumvent accountability to laws and to avert public disclosure.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby GaryN » Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:45 am

Exposed water ice detected on comet’s surface
Image
Using the high-resolution science camera on board ESA’s Rosetta spacecraft, scientists have identified more than a hundred patches of water ice a few metres in size on the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/06/24 ... s-surface/
If it's really ice or not, it IS ice as far as ESA is concerned. Don't argue.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby Frantic » Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:31 pm

Patches of surface ice are not a prediction of mainstream comet theory. The patches actually fit better with H2O production depositing onto the comet as opposed to ice being an original material of the comet. Without holes or sufficient surface ice there seems to be little evidence of any jetting of water actually coming from the body of the comet. Do they believe that the surface is porous? Do they really think there is water jetting from the comet? Do they think ice is sublimating at -70C? I must be missing something here but ... makes no sense the way I am thinking right now.

Wait I found a clue ...

Based on observations of the gas emerging from comets, they are known to be rich in ices. As they move closer to the Sun along their orbits, their surfaces are warmed and the ices sublimate into gas, which streams away from the nucleus, dragging along dust particles embedded in the ice to form the coma and tail.


It is now gases rich with ices ...

And from wiki :

Planetary scientists often classifly volatiles with exceptionally low melting points, such as hydrogen and helium, as gases (as in gas giant), while those volatiles with melting points above about 100 K are referred to as ices.


Which tells us gas = plasma and ice = substance with melt point above 100K

Now read the first quote using the new meaning for gas and ice.

Watch the shifting of the sands.
Frantic
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby ZenMonkeyNZ » Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:58 pm

Frantic wrote:Do they think ice is sublimating at -70C?


Hmmm, I've seen people complaining about this before, but despite all the other flaws in the ice-comet theory, this is not a problem. Boiling points in a low pressure medium are lower than in a dense medium. Water in space (say, ejected from a space vehicle) instantly vaporises, however the tiny gaseous molecules then de-sublimate to become tiny ice crystals.

Have the consequences (if any) of this de-sublimation for observation in cometary coma been explored?
ZenMonkeyNZ
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:19 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby Regulus » Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:28 pm

viscount aero wrote:This ethos pervades all of government by the way--to circumvent accountability to laws and to avert public disclosure.


Agreed regards the whole of government.
One of the ways they circumvent the laws against spying on their own people, is to get friendly nations to take the data feed, be it computer, phones, etc..
If Australia spies for England, and England for the USofA, and the USofA for us, then we're not breaking the law.
Weasely isn't it?
But this is an aside to the original thread theme. Just still irks me everytime I remember my government's involvement.
Trev
Couer de Leon
User avatar
Regulus
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 9:25 am
Location: Devonport, Tasmania Aust

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:17 am

Regulus wrote:
viscount aero wrote:This ethos pervades all of government by the way--to circumvent accountability to laws and to avert public disclosure.


Agreed regards the whole of government.
One of the ways they circumvent the laws against spying on their own people, is to get friendly nations to take the data feed, be it computer, phones, etc..
If Australia spies for England, and England for the USofA, and the USofA for us, then we're not breaking the law.
Weasely isn't it?
But this is an aside to the original thread theme. Just still irks me everytime I remember my government's involvement.
Trev

Yes I agree.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby granite_crusher » Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:04 pm

I just wanted to comment on sublimation aspect. From my experience with cryo-SEM (scanning electron microscopy) operation sublimation in the vacuum (more less 5x10^-5 mBar) occurs even in lower temperatures, actually standard procedure of sublimating samples to get rid of water crystals is -90 C.
-70 C from my experience would result in very strong sublimation (half cm during the night easily).
To demonstrate how pathetic snowball theory is we even can put EU proofs for a moment aside and just use pure mainstream belief and physics laws:
Looking from technical perspective of sublimation, snowball flying in the vacuum for billions of years is impossible.
You don't need even to do any observation of comet, send expensive instruments.. the things like "very old", "snowballs", "in the vacuum/space" doesn't fit together, the concept were already completely broken the moment it were born in some heads, because either it is not snowball -- through billions of years it would completely sublimate, or either it is snowball -- but very very very very very young. If count the time from discovery (1969) we have about 45 years. from that time the comet should have sublimed more less 1km... Ok... some may argue that what we see today is what left from sublimation from this primordial comets which seeded our oceans.. blah blah... Lets do some simple calculations. Of course we will have to make some assumptions (lets assume the same way as mainstream that nothing changes from 4.4 Ga, the gravity slowly pulls things , the space is getting cooler after big bang, so the comet surface would be not colder than -90 C and.... blah blah...). Lets assume the sublimation ratio of 0.5cm/day (which is reasonable in range of -93 -- -40 C). So multiplying such sublimation ratio with 4.4Ga we get about 80 million km diameter (Now we are talking :)). For comparison suns diameter is 1.4 million km. The more I look into this the more bizarre it looks especially if to add another "snowball" comets...
Of course the math is not very appropriate, but even with lower sublimation ratios the initial "Snowball" comets had to be at least size of planets. :lol: In that case earths could seed the comet.
The conclusion is that the snowball theory is one of known "super massive black holes", it is self explanatory why mainstream astronomers can't leave its "gravitation" field.

P.S. this is my first time writing on this forum, I am sorry for my bad english
granite_crusher
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby ZenMonkeyNZ » Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:03 pm

granite_crusher wrote:From my experience with cryo-SEM (scanning electron microscopy) operation sublimation in the vacuum (more less 5x10^-5 mBar) occurs even in lower temperatures, actually standard procedure of sublimating samples to get rid of water crystals is -90 C. -70 C from my experience would result in very strong sublimation (half cm during the night easily).


Thanks for the info. Any chance you could show some working calculations?

As a rough estimate, I would start with a pressure of 10^-11 Torr (the approx pressure on the Moon). Interplanetary space is generally much lower, but this would be a good starting point. A more accurate estimate would be good, but a quick search doesn't return much on cometary atmospheric pressure.

Do you know of experimental results for such low pressure vapour points for water? From what I can gather, the sublimation temperature at that pressure would be somewhere in the region of 100°K, or roughly -170°C. Given the estimated surface temperature of comets at 3AU is in the order of -70 to -90°C, they should be sublimating a lot further out than that.

Does anyone know actual values, or have better estimates?
ZenMonkeyNZ
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:19 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby Frantic » Fri Jun 26, 2015 4:06 pm

Thanks for replies on sublimation.

I was always told sublimation happens as the comet approaches the sun, meaning they need MORE heat to sublimate ... anyway ... Sounds like they are so far off it is pointless for me to consider the things they say.

I thought the theory was ice is frozen trapped in rock, it approaches sun, heat causes sublimating jets. Did I misunderstand the mainstream model?
Frantic
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby ZenMonkeyNZ » Fri Jun 26, 2015 6:02 pm

Frantic wrote:I thought the theory was ice is frozen trapped in rock, it approaches sun, heat causes sublimating jets. Did I misunderstand the mainstream model?


That's the theory.
ZenMonkeyNZ
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:19 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby Frantic » Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:52 pm

ZenMonkeyNZ wrote:
Frantic wrote:I thought the theory was ice is frozen trapped in rock, it approaches sun, heat causes sublimating jets. Did I misunderstand the mainstream model?


That's the theory.


Ok, just checking. ;)

Is the pressure on the inside the comet's bow shock comparable to the IPM outside?
Frantic
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby granite_crusher » Sat Jun 27, 2015 3:52 am

Why snowball theory is bad? The mainstream is not only ignorant of electric nature, they are also ignorant of thermodynamics too...

Maybe I didn't mentioned most important stuff in previous post. The mentioned sublimation were done in cryo-SEM preparation in our lab not on the pure ice/water, but wet biological/geological (soils) materials which is closer to this "dirty nonsense". Well it is hard to understand what exactly dirty snowball means, what the proportion of ice and other substances are? It is true that if the material have ice just in pores the sublimation rate will be slower, but taking into account this "billion years" the water long ago would be sublimated out. This 0.5 cm/night ratio mentioned before was observed on biological sample, so ratio for pure snow should be bigger, I could experiment on different materials more in my free time. We have to remember that mainstream are ongoing slight paradigm shift (the imagined ice/rock ratio are being lowered down with every picture ad measurement (data in your face mainstream! :))), but if we want to check credibility of those guys we should use original theory like this
http://i1.wp.com/www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/rosetta2.jpg
this is what they were thinking (and from point of sublimation it were already completely wrong), sublimation in the billion years would leave nothing from such comet.

If somebody would want to make some more precise calculations there some article dealing with similar problem on the moon:
http://people.nwra.com/resumes/andreas/publications/Icarus_Moon.pdf
just be carefull, cause looking too fig1 in mentioned publication, it looks author tried to underestimate sublimation ratio for lower temperatures (this of course would be needed to believe that water can be found on moon).

What I want to make clear is that "Snowball" + "Billions years" + "vacuum" = nonsense.
You can think about existence of vacuum in billion years, but then no snowball. You can have Snowball in the vacuum, but it can spend time there much much less than billions years or have to be bizarre big, and you can have snowball in billion years but just not in vacuum. This of course is based just on the laws which should be known to mainstream and had to be known before constructing and launching mission to Rosseta.
This just proves one thing: they's "real science" is based on imagination and physical laws (known to them) are fitted just at right moment of model, but the same physical laws are completely ignored in other parts of the same model.
granite_crusher
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby StefanR » Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:12 am

granite_crusher wrote:What I want to make clear is that "Snowball" + "Billions years" + "vacuum" = nonsense.
You can think about existence of vacuum in billion years, but then no snowball. You can have Snowball in the vacuum, but it can spend time there much much less than billions years or have to be bizarre big, and you can have snowball in billion years but just not in vacuum. This of course is based just on the laws which should be known to mainstream and had to be known before constructing and launching mission to Rosseta.
This just proves one thing: they's "real science" is based on imagination and physical laws (known to them) are fitted just at right moment of model, but the same physical laws are completely ignored in other parts of the same model.


I very much like the argumentation you're giving here, but I believe there is a cop out ready for that.
It's said in certain vacuous circles of academia that those comets aren't always in such close proximity to the sun. It could be said namely that icy/snow comets are residing in the far reaches of the solarsystem, viz. the Kuiperbelt or even the Oort cloud. And sometimes, by some happenstance or other necessity of chance, these objectoïds are flung or have their orbits disturbed by which they find themselves coursing towards the sun. Thus, I have heard, these comets can still have some covering or shallow layer of material to sublimate.
Snowball saved?

;)
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby ZenMonkeyNZ » Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:29 pm

StefanR wrote: . . . And sometimes, by some happenstance or other necessity of chance, these objectoïds are flung or have their orbits disturbed by which they find themselves coursing towards the sun. Thus, I have heard, these comets can still have some covering or shallow layer of material to sublimate.
Snowball saved?
;)


Here are some mainstream calculations on sublimation amounts per perihelion pass for sun grazers – note that the values are higher for porous ices (63m of ice per pass): http://npcs.j-npcs.org/Procc/v13p255.pdf
ZenMonkeyNZ
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:19 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:46 pm

The general idea is that:

1. if the ice is on the surface it will sublimate rapidly when exposed to UV at a close enough range and
2. if the ice is sub-surface it will not sublimate at all. Martian regolith excavated by rover shovels exposing subsurface ice has proven that the regolith acts as an insulator. Parroting around "subsurface ice sublimation" is pure fantasy.

Both points pose contradictions to dirty snowball theory. A predominantly ice world returning to the Sun would not survive for billions of years in the solar system. It would be vaporized immediately particularly the Sun-grazer class of comets that have been observed to survive intact after being exposed to thousands of degree temperatures.

For the most part, cometary surface ices are detected only in small traces and the patches are not vaporizing. Also, cometary surfaces are desert-like, asteroid-like. They're bone dry.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests