EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

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: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:11 pm

I was also hoping for some results from the seismology department. I have searched and can not find anything, but am itching to know what more might have been learned, or inferred, about the inner structure.
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: 2636
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby jjohnson » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:35 pm

I don't remember reading anything about seismic studies being part of their game plan, Gary. The only consequence they wanted to observe was the plume from the impact to check for chunks of ice or maybe hydroxyl ions.

I don't know whether the seismic instruments they left behind are still operational - I'd be surprised - but at any rate I am not sure how sensitive they'd be in winkling out the signal from a small impact down in the south polar regolith.

I'd be happy to see a comprehensive but plain English interpretation of their findings, but LOL that would stop the busy work cold, and put more folks out of a job.
Jim
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby GaryN » Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:34 pm

Hi JJ,
I did contact a gentleman at the Seismology Institute, and he thought like you, that any of the Apollo era instruments would be long dead, but was going to check into it, and put up a blog if there was anything to reoprt.
The Russians also had some stuff up there, and I think they would share data. Frow what I understand of the equipment, when it was working, it should have been able to detect the LCROSS impact, I'll maybe E-Mail the guy again and ask.
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: 2636
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby solrey » Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:14 am

Found an interesting article from march 1st while looking for updates.
Look for "Flood" of News This Week About Water on the Moon

There wasn't even a trickle though. The news embargo might still be in effect.

While the results are still under embargo, Colaprete was able to discuss the basics of what the science teams have found.


Lots of surprises for them, lots of accurate predictions for EU.

NASA:

One surprise for the teams was the low "flash" produced by the impact of the spacecraft. "We didn't see a visible flash, even with sensitive instruments," Colaprete said. "There was a delayed and muted flash and the impactor was essentially buried, with all the energy apparently deposited at a depth. So it is very likely that there were volatiles in the vicinity."

In the first few seconds, atomic emission lines (e.g., low-energy Na) appear.


EU:

Talking about the interaction between the probe and surface on initial contact.
Depending on strength, direction and flux of the IMF, and charge state of the probes, there might be a weak discharge, possibly detected as a faint/weak "whistler", probably not a visible flash though.


Speaking of piezoelectrics, I think a subsurface discharge will be initiated upon impact by compression of the dielectric rock layers. I think that will also disturb the EM field/plasma environment in the south polar region. That will likely enhance/define the electrostatic dust layer. That piezoelectric discharge might be picked up as an EM radio wave spike, approaching, or even equalling x-ray energies, immediately following physical impact.


NASA:

All the elements found in the plume must be coming from cometary and asteroidal sources, Colaprete said. They also found water ice, sulfur dioxide, methane, ammonia, methanol, carbon dioxide, sodium and potassium. "We haven't identified everything yet, but what we're seeing is similar to what you would see in an impact of a comet, like what happened with the Deep Impact probe, which is exciting and surprising. The mineralogy in the dust itself that we kicked up corresponds to what was seen by M Cubed instrument, and also what we see in chondrite asteroids."


EU:

Electric comet theory says that comets are electrically stressed asteroids.
Chemical analysis should lie within the range for comets.

The point I was making is that the same processes are observed on multiple objects in the solar system.


NASA:


"The concentration of hydrogen we saw in the regolith was higher than expected," Colaprete said. "We ran the numbers again, and we said, 'Oh, we can't wiggle out of this answer.' Then the PI for the LEND (Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector on LRO, which can acquire high-resolution neutron datasets) instrument confirmed that their numbers were entirely consistent with what we got. It was surprising because it wasn't what we expected. But that is why you make measurements."

Colaprete said observing molecular hydrogen is spectacular because normally it doesn't stay stable even at 40 Kelvin. The teams are still speculating how it was trapped and what form it was in. They found about 150 kg of molecular hydrogen in the plume.


EU:

Originally posted to jref forum on the electric comet thread and copied on this thread to help explain chemical reaction chains and their by-products, molecular hydrogen is one of them.
The next reaction that would occur is when that water then reacts with free electrons, liberated from the surface, within the electric field of the discharge current. Mineral salts in the dust and flakes etched from the surface are probably involved in this reaction. The cathode reaction is:
2H2O + 2e- -> 2OH- + H2


NASA:

"They saw vapor cloud fill the 'slit' of the spectrometer's observations at about 23 seconds after impact and it remained there through the entire flyby," Colaprete said. "What that corresponds to is a hot vapor cloud of about 1000 degrees that was observed."


EU:

Most, if not all, of the gases detected will be the by-products of electro-chemical/thermatic reaction chains.


NASA:

The second surprise was the morphology of the impact plume. "We had reason to believe there would be high angle plume," said Colaprete. "But we had a lower angle plume. We had a signal of a debris curtain in the spectrometers in LCROSS all the way down in the four minutes following the impact of the Centaur stage.

It observed a plume about 20 km tall, and observed a "footprint" of a plume up to 40 km above the Moon's surface.


EU:

I'm thinking that craters which appear to have been formed by EDM (circular and flat bottomed) would have a brittle, cinder-like crust (similar to slag), covering a hard, fused layer underneath. I expect the debris will consist of fine, micron sized particles and meter sized rocks, with very little inbetween. Considering the plume was as wide as it was tall, I suspect the depth of the impact reached the fused layer, producing considerable lateral force on the impact debris. 15 seconds after impact with a diameter of 6-8km would be a lateral velocity of ~0.5km/s or 1,800km/h. Perhaps the plume brightness was at the low end of predictions because there was more lateral distribution of material making the plume more diffuse/less bright.


NASA:

...but the other side of the equation is understanding all the stuff you don't understand in the data, and there was a lot we didn't initially understand."

"This should be a fun year as we pull this all together, and get it released to the public so we can get a lot more neurons looking at this,"


EU:

I predict a few surprises for NASA, at least.


Me thinks that EU neurons are way ahead of ya there Mr. NASA guy.
:mrgreen:
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
solrey
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby solrey » Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:03 pm

Some research corroborating the idea of a weak electric field being a catalyst for chemical reactions was published today.


It's electrifying: Scientists use electric fields to control chemical reactions of ultracold molecules

Physicists at JILA have demonstrated a new tool for controlling ultracold gases and ultracold chemistry: electric fields.

As described in the April 29 issue of Nature, JILA scientists discovered that applying a small electric field spurs a dramatic increase in chemical reactions in their gas of ultracold molecules. JILA is a joint institute of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the University of Colorado at Boulder.


"What's new here is the possibility for long-range interactions," says NIST Fellow Deborah Jin, the other senior author of the new paper. "Basically, atoms interact only by hitting each other—we call this a contact interaction. Polar molecules can interact at a distance, like two magnets attract (or repel) each other even when they are not touching each other."

The molecules used in the research are in their lowest possible energy state. The JILA scientists used an external electric field to "tune" the molecules' electrical properties, increasing the chemical reaction rate very rapidly—boosting it 30 fold, for instance, with a fairly small electric field.


These KRb molecules are susceptible to electric fields because they are electrically "polar": they have a positive electrical charge at the rubidium end of the molecule and a negative charge at the potassium end.


I would think the piezoelectric effect plus the shattering of bonds among various atoms and molecules would produce at least some polarization. There might even exist inherent polarization of the regolith and subsurface as a result of being located at the bottom of a polar crater as suggested in the recent modeling of electrified polar moon craters.

As the solar wind flows over natural obstructions on the moon, it may charge polar lunar craters to hundreds of volts, according to new calculations by NASA’s Lunar Science Institute team.


Like we've been saying, there's a potentially reactive composition immersed in a dynamic electrical environment, add the kinetic energy of an impact and complex chemical reactions would nearly be certain to occur.

As they say, " when it rains it pours", more evidence of similar chemistry being found on all rocky bodies exposed to the solar plasma stream including Mercury, Earth's Moon, comets and... asteroids.

Scientists finds evidence of water ice on asteroid's surface

Using NASA's Infrared Telescope Facility on Hawaii's Mauna Kea, Emery and Andrew Rivkin of Johns Hopkins University in Laurel, Md., examined the surface of 24 Themis, a 200-kilometer wide asteroid that sits halfway between Mars and Jupiter. By measuring the spectrum of infrared sunlight reflected by the object, the researchers found the spectrum consistent with frozen water and determined that 24 Themis is coated with a thin film of ice. They also detected organic material.


"The organics we detected appear to be complex, long-chained molecules. Raining down on a barren Earth in meteorites, these could have given a big kick-start to the development of life," Emery said.

Emery noted that finding ice on the surface of 24 Themis was a surprise because the surface is too warm for ice to stick around for a long time.

"This implies that ice is quite abundant in the interior of 24 Themis and perhaps many other asteroids. This ice on asteroids may be the answer to the puzzle of where Earth's water came from," he said.

Still, how the water ice got there is unclear.

24 Themis' proximity to the sun causes ice to vaporize. However, the researchers' findings suggest the asteroid's lifetime of ice ranges from thousands to millions of years depending on the latitude. Therefore, the ice is regularly being replenished. The scientists theorize this is done by a process of "outgassing" in which ice buried within the asteroid escapes slowly as vapor migrates through cracks to the surface or as vapor escapes quickly and sporadically when 24 Themis is hit by space debris. Since Themis is part of an asteroid "family" that was formed from a large impact and the subsequent fragmentation of a larger body long ago, this scenario means the parent body also had ice and has deep implications for how our solar system formed.

The discovery of abundant ice on 24 Themis demonstrates that water is much more common in the Main Belt of asteroids than previously thought.


The scientists' discovery also further blurs the line between comets and asteroids. Asteroids have long been considered to be rocky and comets icy. Furthermore, it was once believed that comets could have brought water to Earth. This theory was nixed when it was discovered comets' water has different isotopic signatures than water on Earth.



What are two things that all of these rocky bodies of similar composition and chemistry have in common? Direct exposure to solar plasma and time varying electromagnetic fields. The main differences among them are in how much and how rapidly their electromagnetic environment changes. Would that have an effect on the isotopes such that comets would have a different isotope signature than a moon/planet while asteroids could have isotopes similar to both?

cheers
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
solrey
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby jjohnson » Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:33 pm

Excellent forecasting, Solrey. Good thinking; good forensics; good application of EU's straightforward electro-chemical explanations and your knowledge in them. It must be exciting times for the paid observers, as they they are living the Chinese curse ("May you live in exciting times!"). -at least "surprising" times...
:D
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Previous

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron