Electric Comets

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: The Rocky Comet

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Dec 13, 2014 12:22 am

These people hold advanced degrees in order to publish such findings :lol:

The article is almost like reading something from "The Onion."
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The Rocky Comet

Unread postby nick c » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:46 am

A "rock comet" is a new kind of object being discussed by astronomers. It is, essentially, an asteroid that comes very close to the sun--so close that solar heating scorches dusty debris right off its rocky surface. Rock comets could thus grow comet-like tails that produce meteor showers on Earth.
This is an example of paradigm creep. Moving toward the EC model without any acknowledgement. When the EC model is finally accepted, of course no credit will be given and they will say "we knew that for quite some time."
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Rocky Comet

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:06 am

nick c wrote:
A "rock comet" is a new kind of object being discussed by astronomers. It is, essentially, an asteroid that comes very close to the sun--so close that solar heating scorches dusty debris right off its rocky surface. Rock comets could thus grow comet-like tails that produce meteor showers on Earth.

This is an example of paradigm creep. Moving toward the EC model without any acknowledgement. When the EC model is finally accepted, of course no credit will be given and they will say "we knew that for quite some time."


Yes that is a great point. That is exactly what it is. They're doing it bit by bit to hide their ignorance and save face. The establishment cannot suddenly appear naked.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The Rocky Comet

Unread postby StefanR » Sat Dec 13, 2014 1:19 pm

But it gets weirder and weirder:

Most meteor showers are caused by icy comets, which spew jets of meteoroids when they are heated by sunlight. The Geminids are different. The parent is not a comet but a weird rocky object named 3200 Phaethon.
Yes thank you, like I said weird. And now we also know that icy comets spew jets of meteoroids.
Can somebody please make up there minds already! What is it, rocky, icy, dusty, snowy, it seems we are in need of sneezy, dopey and sleepy in a little while.

[...]
In fact, 3200 Phaethon resembles main belt asteroid Pallas so much, it could well be a 5-kilometer chip off that 544 km block. "If 3200 Phaethon broke apart from asteroid Pallas, as some researchers believe, then Geminid meteoroids might be debris from the breakup," speculates Cooke.
Phaethon is just a chip of the old block, you can check the resemblance in the family photo I guess.
[...]
To test the idea, researchers turned to NASA's twin STEREO spacecraft, which are designed to study solar activity. In June 2009, STEREO watched 3200 Phaethon passing only 15 solar diameters from the sun's surface. What happened next surprised UCLA planetary scientists David Jewitt and Jing Li, who analyzed the data. "
SURPRISE!
3200 Phaethon unexpectedly brightened by a factor of two," they wrote. "The most likely explanation is that Phaethon ejected dust, perhaps in response to a break-down of surface rocks (through thermal fracture and decomposition cracking of hydrated minerals) in the intense heat of the Sun."
Most likely indeed! With the heat blowing like a wolf in front of the house of a pig.
So, according to the STEREO observations, 3200 Phaethon does behave like a rock comet.
Hypothesis confirmed...
The “rock comet” hypothesis is compelling, but Jewett and Li point out a problem: The amount of dust 3200 Phaethon ejected during its sun-encounter added a paltry 0.01% to the mass of the Geminid debris stream, not enough to keep the debris stream stocked up with meteoroids for the annual display of shooting stars. 3200 Phaethon is not spewing enough dust to account for the Geminids.
Well at least you tried!

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/09dec_rockcomet/

The vid linked to in that article says it elucidates the hypothesis,...but it doesn't.
But then again I feel some NASA subliminal message is coming through there, when he just keeps on saying:
"Pay-a-ton, Pay-a-ton, Pay-a-ton" :shock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEPPGF3KrMQ
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: Philae Images

Unread postby MattEU » Sun Dec 14, 2014 9:33 am

Here is a photograph of what the human eye would see comet 67p as, and an explanation of how they got to it and why it has taken so long.

Comet 67P/C-G in living colour

Image
A colour image of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko composed of three images taken with the Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) of the scientific imaging system OSIRIS in red (centred at 744 nm wavelength), green (536 nm), and blue (481 nm) filters on 6 August 2014 from a distance of 120 kilometres. The image covers roughly 4 x 4 km at a resolution of about 3.9 metres per pixel. Credits: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA

Rosetta’s OSIRIS team have produced a colour image of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as it would be seen by the human eye. As anticipated, the comet turns out to be very grey indeed, with only slight, subtle colour variations seen across its surface.

To create an image revealing 67P’s “true” colours, the scientists superposed images taken sequentially through filters centred on red, green, and blue wavelengths.

However, as the comet rotated and Rosetta moved during this sequence, the three images are slightly shifted with respect to each other, and are taken from slightly different observing perspectives. Painstaking work is needed to superimpose the images accurately, which is one reason it has taken so long to come up with the first meaningful colour image of 67P/C-G.

“As it turns out, 67P/C-G looks dark grey, in reality almost as black as coal,” says the instrument’s Principal Investigator Holger Sierks from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS).

As explained in earlier blog posts for the NAVCAM images, the intensity of the images has been enhanced to span the full range from black to white, in order to make surface details visible. But the colours have not been enhanced: the comet really is very grey.

A more detailed first analysis nevertheless reveals that the comet reflects red light slightly more efficiently than other wavelengths. This is a well-known phenomenon observed at many other small bodies in the Solar System and is due to the small size of the surface grains. That does not, however, mean that the comet would look red to the human eye. Natural sunlight peaks in the green part of the spectrum and the response of the human eye is similarly matched. Thus, overall, the comet would look rather grey to the human eye, as seen here.

Long before Rosetta’s arrival at the comet, ground-based telescope observations had shown 67P/C-G to be grey on average, but it was not possible to resolve the comet and see any surface details. However, now that OSIRIS is able to take images from close-up, scientists are surprised to see an extremely homogeneously coloured body even on a detailed scale, pointing at little or no compositional variation on the comet’s surface.

For example, any ice on the surface should appear brighter in the blue filter, leading to the appearance of blue-ish patches. This image contains no indication of any such icy patches, consistent with observations made by some of Rosetta’s instruments.

The overall grey colour of the surface shows that it is covered some kind of dark dust. Further studies using other combinations of the 25 filters in OSIRIS’ arsenal will focus on trying to understand the composition of this dust, by looking for different minerals such as pyroxenes, common in the Earth’s crust, or minerals containing water. OSIRIS will also be trying to detect various gas species in the coma surrounding the nucleus.

User avatar
MattEU
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:00 am

Re: Philae Images

Unread postby seasmith » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:07 am

MattEU wrote:
For example, any ice on the surface should appear brighter in the blue filter, leading to the appearance of blue-ish patches. This image contains no indication of any such icy patches, consistent with observations made by some of Rosetta’s instruments.
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/12/12 ... ng-colour/
Great follow-up


No ice patches." Why would anyone have expected otherwise?
Fifty shades of Grey, the ~colors of decomposing Rock.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Rosetta Reignites Debate on Earth's Oceans

Unread postby Metryq » Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:12 pm

NASA Science News: Rosetta Reignites Debate on Earth's Oceans

One popular theory holds that water was brought to Earth by the ancient impacts of comets and asteroids. However, new data from the European Space Agency’s Rosetta spacecraft indicate that terrestrial water did not come from comets like 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The findings were published Dec. 10th in the journal Science.

Like the past decade of other comet missions and observations wasn't enough?

Researchers agree that water must have been delivered to Earth by small bodies at a later stage of the planet’s evolution.

Well, so long as they're agreed on this. Perhaps a big body—Saturn—gave Earth its water?

Observations will help scientists learn more about the origin and evolution of our solar system and the role comets may have played in seeding Earth with water, and perhaps even life.

And again with the "seeded Earth's oceans with water" mantra.

These guys are like one of those toy cars with a switch on the front bumper that will change the toy's direction when it hits a wall. Only these guys have a broken switch. Bump-bump-bump.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Philae Images

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:19 pm

To my knowledge, the Moon is also this color, nearly as black as pavement. The grey/white face is only at 7% albedo. At this low number, the actual color is near black. That's somewhat mind-boggling to realize as it's never seen for what it really is.

In the attached graphic, click on it and look very closely in the lower right to see the relative reflectance of 67P :)

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29525157
Attachments
Albedo_comparison.jpg
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Rosetta Reignites Debate on Earth's Oceans

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:25 pm

For them, water must always be "carried" or "brought"--but this is a perpetual loop conundrum for them: What brought the water to the comets and asteroids?

Therefore the theory is not believable. It is further not believable when considering that myriad celestial bodies have known water on them such as Enceladus and Europa, others. So, again, what brought their water? And how can tiny rocks magically seed every planet and icy moon?

Where is the mechanism for this and where is the evidence for this massive bombardment activity? But there is a deeper conundrum: Why did the trillions of comets and asteroids discriminate with Europa, missing Ganymede? Did they have a group meeting and decide to not visit Io either? Why did the rock swarm gang up on poor Enceladus but not want to visit Iapetus?
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Rosetta Reignites Debate on Earth's Oceans

Unread postby FS3 » Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:23 am

Metryq wrote:...These guys are like one of those toy cars with a switch on the front bumper that will change the toy's direction when it hits a wall. Only these guys have a broken switch. Bump-bump-bump....


See the PR-video from ESA for promoting the ROSETTA mission. It's called "AMBITION". (The first video embedded in my article)

And that's exactly what this is all about: Ambition, SciFi-nerds who think they are gods but nowhere no science. The emperor has no clothes. And more and more children are beginning to recognize this.

FS3
User avatar
FS3
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: Europe

Re: Philae Images

Unread postby starbiter » Mon Dec 15, 2014 9:34 am

A friend sent me the links below. He claims the results are from a spectrometer that can distinguish between HO and H20.

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/07 ... mets-coma/

http://rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov/news/quest- ... ce-67p/c-g

If sensors disagree with a theory it might be good to challenge the theory.

Viscount or others, do You think the sensors are detecting H20, or are the results misinterpreted in Your opinion?

If the comet does have H20 and EU asserts it's bone dry because of accepted ideas we're likely to get a black eye. If there is H20 it's much better to point our mistake before an opponent does.

I personally think most of what's seen emanating from comets is HO. But that doesn't preclude H20, IMHO.

michael steinbacher
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: Philae Images

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:22 am

starbiter wrote:A friend sent me the links below. He claims the results are from a spectrometer that can distinguish between HO and H20.

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/07 ... mets-coma/

http://rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov/news/quest- ... ce-67p/c-g

If sensors disagree with a theory it might be good to challenge the theory.

Viscount or others, do You think the sensors are detecting H20, or are the results misinterpreted in Your opinion?

If the comet does have H20 and EU asserts it's bone dry because of accepted ideas we're likely to get a black eye. If there is H20 it's much better to point our mistake before an opponent does.

I personally think most of what's seen emanating from comets is HO. But that doesn't preclude H20, IMHO.

michael steinbacher


They are detecting isotopologues of water, a series of H20 species, in vapor (aerosol) form. You can say an isotopologue is a mutated form of a traditional molecule that is attached to other "normal" molecules of the same.

from Wiki:
"Isotopologues are molecules that differ only in their isotopic composition. Simply, the isotopologue of a chemical species has at least one atom with a different number of neutrons than the parent.

An example is water, where some of its hydrogen-related isotopologues are: "light water" (HOH or H2O), "semi-heavy water" with the deuterium isotope in equal proportion to protium (HDO or 1H2HO), "heavy water" with two deuterium isotopes of hydrogen per molecule (D2O or 2H2O), and "super-heavy water" or tritiated water (T2O or 3H2O), where the hydrogen atoms are replaced with tritium isotopes. Oxygen-related isotopologues of water include the commonly available form of heavy-oxygen water (H218O) and the more difficult to separate version with the 17O isotope. Both elements may be replaced by isotopes, for example in the doubly labeled water isotopologue D218O."
-----------
This poses a big problem for their comet theory in that the isotopologue species detected don't match anything observed on Earth. This makes the comet and Earth unrelated objects.

Although EU assumes that comets have no direct relationship to the Earth anyway, the establishment physics/astronomy world has now finally taken notice to this possibility through their prime indicator--67P's water--as being unrelated to Earth's inherent H20 isotopologue species.

But this doesn't sway the establishment's tunnel vision about "water carriers" that allegedly create planetary atmospheres and oceans. The establishment still thinks that comets and asteroids are the prime culprits for all "water transport to the planets"--thinking that quadrillions of tiny rocks all get in a group and think about which planet or moon to target for an ocean.

What the establishment will do at this point is target comet after comet for chemical analyses--to finally find one that matches Earth's isotopologues--and such will save the day with dirty snowball "water carrier" theory. And they will isssue a PR stating that they have "found" the magic comet that finally "proves" their theory. :lol: Generations will then believe that comets are 100% ice with some dark soot over them and all will be well!
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Philae Images

Unread postby starbiter » Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:48 am

viscount aero wrote:
starbiter wrote:A friend sent me the links below. He claims the results are from a spectrometer that can distinguish between HO and H20.

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/07 ... mets-coma/

http://rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov/news/quest- ... ce-67p/c-g

If sensors disagree with a theory it might be good to challenge the theory.

Viscount or others, do You think the sensors are detecting H20, or are the results misinterpreted in Your opinion?

If the comet does have H20 and EU asserts it's bone dry because of accepted ideas we're likely to get a black eye. If there is H20 it's much better to point our mistake before an opponent does.

I personally think most of what's seen emanating from comets is HO. But that doesn't preclude H20, IMHO.

michael steinbacher


They are detecting isotopologues of water, a series of H20 species, in vapor (aerosol) form. You can say an isotopologue is a mutated form of a traditional molecule that is attached to other "normal" molecules of the same.

from Wiki:
"Isotopologues are molecules that differ only in their isotopic composition. Simply, the isotopologue of a chemical species has at least one atom with a different number of neutrons than the parent.

An example is water, where some of its hydrogen-related isotopologues are: "light water" (HOH or H2O), "semi-heavy water" with the deuterium isotope in equal proportion to protium (HDO or 1H2HO), "heavy water" with two deuterium isotopes of hydrogen per molecule (D2O or 2H2O), and "super-heavy water" or tritiated water (T2O or 3H2O), where the hydrogen atoms are replaced with tritium isotopes. Oxygen-related isotopologues of water include the commonly available form of heavy-oxygen water (H218O) and the more difficult to separate version with the 17O isotope. Both elements may be replaced by isotopes, for example in the doubly labeled water isotopologue D218O."
-----------
This poses a big problem for their comet theory in that the isotopologue species detected don't match anything observed on Earth. This makes the comet and Earth unrelated objects.

Although EU assumes that comets have no direct relationship to the Earth anyway, the establishment physics/astronomy world has now finally taken notice to this possibility through their prime indicator--67P's water--as being unrelated to Earth's inherent H20 isotopologue species.

But this doesn't sway the establishment's tunnel vision about "water carriers" that allegedly create planetary atmospheres and oceans. The establishment still thinks that comets and asteroids are the prime culprits for all "water transport to the planets"--thinking that quadrillions of tiny rocks all get in a group and think about which planet or moon to target for an ocean.

What the establishment will do at this point is target comet after comet for chemical analyses--to finally find one that matches Earth's isotopologues--and such will save the day with dirty snowball "water carrier" theory. And they will isssue a PR stating that they have "found" the magic comet that finally "proves" their theory. :lol: Generations will then believe that comets are 100% ice with some dark soot over them and all will be well!



Thanks for Your response Viscount.

I don't think Earth's water came from comets. I don't think comets are ice balls.


On the other hand, is it safe to say comets are bone dry with no H20, in Your opinion?

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: Philae Images

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Dec 15, 2014 1:16 pm

starbiter wrote:Thanks for Your response Viscount.
I don't think Earth's water came from comets. I don't think comets are ice balls.
On the other hand, is it safe to say comets are bone dry with no H20, in Your opinion?
michael


Consider a comet to be a "slow motion" bolide that never hits the ground.

Based on the available evidence from Rosetta and all prior cometary data including Shoemaker/Levy, comets are geologic debris. To get an idea of 67P's interior, look at the neck region. That is what the interior looks like.

Moreover, the Chelyabinsk meteor exhibited a water vapor trail:
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/archives/12356
http://www.meteorites.ru/menu/publicati ... _4_275.pdf

Any evolution of water is result of chemical reactions with the Sun's atmosphere and the comet's body. There is no giant ice core in a comet. There is no evidence for it. A piece of rock debris will not have a differentiated mantle and core. That the establishment is not willing to consider photolysis or electrolysis is result of tunnel vision and "scientism."
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Philae Images

Unread postby starbiter » Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:23 pm

viscount aero wrote:
starbiter wrote:Thanks for Your response Viscount.
I don't think Earth's water came from comets. I don't think comets are ice balls.
On the other hand, is it safe to say comets are bone dry with no H20, in Your opinion?
michael


Consider a comet to be a "slow motion" bolide that never hits the ground.

Based on the available evidence from Rosetta and all prior cometary data including Shoemaker/Levy, comets are geologic debris. To get an idea of 67P's interior, look at the neck region. That is what the interior looks like.

Moreover, the Chelyabinsk meteor exhibited a water vapor trail:
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/archives/12356
http://www.meteorites.ru/menu/publicati ... _4_275.pdf

Any evolution of water is result of chemical reactions with the Sun's atmosphere and the comet's body. There is no giant ice core in a comet. There is no evidence for it. A piece of rock debris will not have a differentiated mantle and core. That the establishment is not willing to consider photolysis or electrolysis is result of tunnel vision and "scientism."



I agree about the neck of 67P showing no signs of water and looking a lot like rock.

That being stipulated to, there still appears to be H20 associated with comets. Your invoking of photolysis or electrolysis seems fine with me.

Thanks again
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron