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: Philae Images

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue Dec 16, 2014 12:28 pm

starbiter wrote:
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


It may be more appropriately regarded as "radiolysis."

from:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/5/1732

"Significance

Whether water is produced by solar wind (SW) radiolysis has been debated for more than four decades. In this paper, we exploit the high spatial resolution of electron microscopy and sensitivity of valence electron energy-loss spectroscopy to detect water (liquid or vapor) in vesicles within (SW-produced) space-weathered rims on interplanetary dust particle (IDP) surfaces. Water in the rims has implications for the origin of water on airless bodies like the Moon and asteroids, the delivery of water to the surfaces of terrestrial planets, and the production of water in other astrophysical environments. In particular, water and organic carbon were likely delivered simultaneously by the high flux of IDPs accreted by the early Earth and other terrestrial planets."

-------------
A host of interesting molecules have been detected at the comet. Some of whose origins may include the following processes:

From: http://www.space.com/24422-solar-wind-m ... -dust.html

"The process of solar-wind hydrogen ions reacting with oxygen in silicate minerals is ubiquitous throughout our solar system, and we can expect that any other star producing a stellar wind with hydrogen ions will be irradiating silicate minerals in dust and on airless bodies in its vicinity, also," Ishii said. "Thus, solar-wind–produced water in dust containing organics can be expected to reach other planets in systems similar to ours."

--------

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapo ... _reactions

"Chemical reactions

A number of chemical reactions have water as a product. If the reactions take place at temperatures higher than the dew point of the surrounding air the water will be formed as vapor and increase the local humidity, if below the dew point local condensation will occur. Typical reactions that result in water formation are the burning of hydrogen or many other hydrocarbons in air itself or in combination with oxygen or other oxidisers.

In a similar fashion other chemical or physical reactions can take place in the presence of water vapor resulting in new chemicals forming such as rust on iron or steel, polymerisation occurring (certain polyurethane foams and cyanoacrylate glues cure with exposure to atmospheric humidity) or forms changing such as where anhydrous chemicals may absorb enough vapor to form a crystalline structure or alter an existing one, sometimes resulting in characteristic color changes that can be used for measurement."

From: http://www.ric.edu/faculty/ptiskus/reactions/

Combustion Reaction

In a combustion reaction, a substance combines with oxygen, releasing a large amount of energy in the form of light and heat. For organic compounds, such as hydrocarbons, the products of the combustion reaction are carbon dioxide and water.


CH4 (methane) + 2 O2 (oxygen) ---> CO2 (carbon dioxide) + 2 H2O (water)


Hydrogen and Oxygen

Reaction II
The combustion of hydrogen yields water vapor as a reaction product. Three balloons of hydrogen and one balloon mixed with hydrogen and oxygen form an explosive mixture

Various Substances with Oxygen


Reactions with Oxygen. Magnesium, steel wool, white phosphorous, and sulfur are burned in oxygen. The resulting reactions are combination reactions in which two substances react to form one product. The products formed in these reactions are MgO, Fe2O3, P4O10 and SO2. All of these combustion reactions are very exothermic.


Phosphorous and Oxygen
The combustion of yellow phosphorus occurs in an oxygen atmosphere. The main product of this reaction is phosphorus pentoxide.
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 StefanR » Fri Dec 19, 2014 9:31 pm

It seems all has been taken care off, at least potentially:

Ancient, hydrogen-rich waters discovered deep underground at locations around the world
A quantum change in our understanding of how much of Earth's crust may be habitable
A team of scientists, led by the University of Toronto's Barbara Sherwood Lollar, has mapped the location of hydrogen-rich waters found trapped kilometres beneath Earth's surface in rock fractures in Canada, South Africa and Scandinavia.

Common in Precambrian Shield rocks - the oldest rocks on Earth - the ancient waters have a chemistry similar to that found near deep sea vents, suggesting these waters can support microbes living in isolation from the surface.

The study, to be published in Nature on December 18, includes data from 19 different mine sites that were explored by Sherwood Lollar, a geoscientist at U of T's Department of Earth Sciences, U of T senior research associate Georges Lacrampe-Couloume, and colleagues at Oxford and Princeton universities.

The scientists also explain how two chemical reactions combine to produce substantial quantities of hydrogen, doubling estimates of global production from these processes which had previously been based only on hydrogen coming out of the ocean floor.

"This represents a quantum change in our understanding of the total volume of Earth's crust that may be habitable," said Sherwood Lollar.

"Until now, none of the estimates of global hydrogen production sustaining deep microbial populations had included a contribution from the ancient continents. Since Precambrian rocks make up more than 70 per cent of the surface of Earth's crust, Sherwood Lollar likens these terrains to a "sleeping giant", a huge area that has now been discovered to be a source of possible energy for life," she said.

One process, known as radiolytic decomposition of water, involves water undergoing a breakdown into hydrogen when exposed to radiation. The other is a chemical reaction called serpentization, a mineral alteration reaction that is common in such ancient rocks.

This study has important implications for the search for deep microbial life. Quantifying the global hydrogen budget is key to understanding the amount of the Earth's biomass that is in the subsurface, as many deep ecosystems contain chemolithotrophic - so-called "rock-eating" - organisms that consume hydrogen. In the deep gold mines of South Africa, and under the sea, at hydrothermal vents where breaks in the fissure of Earth's surface that release geothermally heated waters - hydrogen-rich fluids host complex microbial communities that are nurtured by the chemicals dissolved in the fluids. This study identifies a global network of sites with hydrogen-rich waters that will be targeted for exploration for deep life over the coming years.

Further, because Mars - like the Precambrian crust - consists of billions-of-year-old rocks with hydrogen-producing potential, this finding has ramifications for astrobiology. "If the ancient rocks of Earth are producing this much hydrogen, it may be that similar processes are taking place on Mars," said Sherwood Lollar.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-12/uot-ahw121514.php

Study Hints that Ancient Earth Made Its Own Water—Geologically
Evidence that rock circulating in the mantle feeds world’s oceans even today
SAN FRANCISCO—A new study is helping to answer a longstanding question that has recently moved to the forefront of earth science: Did our planet make its own water through geologic processes, or did water come to us via icy comets from the far reaches of the solar system?

The answer is likely “both,” according to researchers at The Ohio State University— and the same amount of water that currently fills the Pacific Ocean could be buried deep inside the planet right now.

At the American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting on Wednesday, Dec. 17, they report the discovery of a previously unknown geochemical pathway by which the Earth can sequester water in its interior for billions of years and still release small amounts to the surface via plate tectonics, feeding our oceans from within.In trying to understand the formation of the early Earth, some researchers have suggested that the planet was dry and inhospitable to life until icy comets pelted the earth and deposited water on the surface.

Wendy Panero, associate professor of earth sciences at Ohio State, and doctoral student Jeff Pigott are pursuing a different hypothesis: that Earth was formed with entire oceans of water in its interior, and has been continuously supplying water to the surface via plate tectonics ever since.
In a paper now submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal, they reported their recent tests of the mineral bridgmanite, a high-pressure form of olivine. While bridgmanite is the most abundant mineral in the lower mantle, they found that it contains too little hydrogen to play an important role in Earth’s water supply.

Another research group recently found that ringwoodite, another form of olivine, does contain enough hydrogen to make it a good candidate for deep-earth water storage. So Panero and Pigott focused their study on the depth where ringwoodite is found—a place 325-500 miles below the surface that researchers call the “transition zone”—as the most likely region that can hold a planet’s worth of water. From there, the same convection of mantle rock that produces plate tectonics could carry the water to the surface.

One problem: If all the water in ringwoodite is continually drained to the surface via plate tectonics, how could the planet hold any in reserve?

For the research presented at AGU, Panero and Pigott performed new computer calculations of the geochemistry in the lowest portion of the mantle, some 500 miles deep and more. There, another mineral, garnet, emerged as a likely water-carrier—a go-between that could deliver some of the water from ringwoodite down into the otherwise dry lower mantle.

If this scenario is accurate, the Earth may today hold half as much water in its depths as is currently flowing in oceans on the surface, Panero said—an amount that would approximately equal the volume of the Pacific Ocean. This water is continuously cycled through the transition zone as a result of plate tectonics.

“One way to look at this research is that we’re putting constraints on the amount of water that could be down there,” Pigott added.

Panero called the complex relationship between plate tectonics and surface water “one of the great mysteries in the geosciences.” But this new study supports researchers’ growing suspicion that mantle convection somehow regulates the amount of water in the oceans. It also vastly expands the timeline for Earth’s water cycle.

“If all of the Earth’s water is on the surface, that gives us one interpretation of the water cycle, where we can think of water cycling from oceans into the atmosphere and into the groundwater over millions of years,” she said. “But if mantle circulation is also part of the water cycle, the total cycle time for our planet’s water has to be billions of years.”
http://news.osu.edu/news/2014/12/17/study-hints-that-ancient-earth-made-its-own-water%E2%80%94geologically/

But I bet there are some links hidden about it as well in the not so small thread:
Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150
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: Rosetta Reignites Debate on Earth's Oceans

Unread postby seasmith » Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:43 am

˚
StefanR wrote:
But I bet there are some links hidden about it as well in the not so small thread:
Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150


Only hidden because too many subjects were eventually crammed into one thread...

IF there are "abiotic hydro-carbons", i.e. hydrocarbons produced within the earth,
then there must also be 'water' produced within the earth, and not just "stored in rocks", having come from some mysterious source.

We don't know at what depth the heat and or pressure are too great to allow carbon-based organisms to thrive, but once sufficient HCOs had been distributed around the planet surface to cool, condense and have O2 be liberated by sunlight [Cambrian Age ?], then ooh voila,
an explosion of carbon-based organisms living on the surface as well.

None of these fairly recent events however, address the questions concerning Earth's Still unknown origins
;)
seasmith
 
Posts: 2742
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Rosetta Reignites Debate on Earth's Oceans

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:25 am

At least something good is coming out of Rosetta science. There is hope that theories can at least be partially changed by the establishment.

This is a great "official" development even though it's a bit late in creeping into the establishment's paradigm/obsession with "comet seeding." Alas, it's not quite over, though :roll: They're not ready to let go of the old girlfriend yet. They still need to cling to fantasy while they're on the road to something more viable.

As it reads:

"Study Hints that Ancient Earth Made Its Own Water—Geologically
Evidence that rock circulating in the mantle feeds world’s oceans even today
SAN FRANCISCO—A new study is helping to answer a longstanding question that has recently moved to the forefront of earth science: Did our planet make its own water through geologic processes, or did water come to us via icy comets from the far reaches of the solar system?

The answer is likely “both,” according to researchers at The Ohio State University— a
nd the same amount of water that currently fills the Pacific Ocean could be buried deep inside the planet right now."

So you can see they're not ready to shift the paradigm entirely even though "comet seeding" is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard, for years and years, concerning the origin of Earth's oceans. The comet seeding idea is so preposterous that I can't believe anyone ever took that idea so far and seriously as to have it become the main theory of water origin. It isn't physically possible, requiring quadrillions of magic comets to hit the Earth then somehow yield a liquid ocean. And they still annoyingly insist on using "icy" and "comets" together.

But at least now they're seriously looking at the Earth itself as the culprit for oceans. However since the establishment officially still gives some credit to "cometary seeding" we won't see that idea actually die anytime soon. They're still going to pump it to death--although downplay it to save face--because it is a "theory" and, for them, remains a possibility.
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 Metryq » Sat Dec 20, 2014 1:56 pm

viscount aero wrote:However since the establishment officially still gives some credit to "cometary seeding" we won't see that idea actually die anytime soon.

So, we just need another Rosetta-style encounter to "Rule 2: double-tap" this zombie idea. Okay, so we've had prior missions turn up the same data. I guess this isn't a zombie idea, it's a terminator idea. "Fully armored. Very tough." Let's hope it's not a roach idea, in which case it can survive anything.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Rosetta Reignites Debate on Earth's Oceans

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:17 pm

Metryq wrote:
viscount aero wrote:However since the establishment officially still gives some credit to "cometary seeding" we won't see that idea actually die anytime soon.

So, we just need another Rosetta-style encounter to "Rule 2: double-tap" this zombie idea. Okay, so we've had prior missions turn up the same data. I guess this isn't a zombie idea, it's a terminator idea. "Fully armored. Very tough." Let's hope it's not a roach idea, in which case it can survive anything.


This will be a case where, because so much name-brand media has been created, by the metric ton, about "comets that seeded the Earth's oceans", the lay-public will continue to believe this myth indefinitely whereas people into science, and the establishment itself, will begin to consider--bit by bit--cometary seeding as an "alternative theory."

The establishment is adept at saving face while maintaining the confidence game of authority because the lay-public, being generally scientifically apathetic and ignorant, is often gullible whenever something appears in "Scientific American" or is seen on "Nat Geo". The establishment is aware of this.

The flipside is that because of the high profile nature of Rosetta, the findings that question the cometary seeding theory may very well appear in the establishment's own literature for wide public consumption. Let us hope :) There is always that.

Good humor, by the way :mrgreen:
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 Maol » Sat Dec 20, 2014 5:29 pm

When is someone going to determine the destiny of the Oxygen and Hydrogen in the Solar Wind and CMEs?
Maol
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Rosetta Reignites Debate on Earth's Oceans

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:31 am

The hydrogen in the solar wind is nearly 100%, because protons are hydrogen ions. The oxygen content is said to be about the same as in the photosphere, which is .06% by number of atoms or ions and .8% by mass.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Rosetta Reignites Debate on Earth's Oceans

Unread postby Maol » Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:19 pm

Lloyd wrote:The hydrogen in the solar wind is nearly 100%, because protons are hydrogen ions. The oxygen content is said to be about the same as in the photosphere, which is .06% by number of atoms or ions and .8% by mass.

We know that. The isotope ratio information from SOHO/CELIAS and this chart displaying isotopic content of the solar wind was published in 1996, so we have known for almost twenty years the percentage of oxygen and hydrogen and electrons in the solar wind and CMEs.

What no one has bothered to explain is what happens when the ions of hydrogen, oxygen and electrons cool in intimate proximity of each other.

I've said it before …. at the peak temperature of earthbound combustion, in a bonfire or an internal combustion engine, the combustion gasses are in the ionized state and upon cooling form into the exhaust products, H2O, CO2, CO, NOx, HOOC, etc. It is inevitable that the ions in the solar wind cool when they enter the shadow (from the Sun) in the leeward side of any solar system body and when they cool they will obey the same physical laws as they do in the thermodynamic and chemical processes in combustion here on Earth.

Ergo, the megatons of Solar Wind ions, H and O and electrons, become water ..... megatons of water. CMEs are said to occasionally be upwards of 20 Billion Tons. Do the math on how much water can result from .8% of 20 Billion tons.

http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bull ... mi1387.gif

Image
Maol
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Rosetta Reignites Debate on Earth's Oceans

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:12 pm

It is inevitable that the ions in the solar wind cool when they enter the shadow (from the Sun) in the leeward side of any solar system body and when they cool they will obey the same physical laws as they do in the thermodynamic and chemical processes in combustion here on Earth.



Maol, If molecular coalescing processes were that straight forward, wouldn't the windshield on the space station be icing up ?

As mentioned previously, wouldn't local centers of gravity and local magneto-spherics, as well as temperature; conduce the inception of nuclear coalescence ?



ToroidalVortex.jpg
ToroidalVortex.jpg (3.33 KiB) Viewed 5538 times
seasmith
 
Posts: 2742
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Rosetta Reignites Debate on Earth's Oceans

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:24 pm

Maol wrote:
Lloyd wrote:The hydrogen in the solar wind is nearly 100%, because protons are hydrogen ions. The oxygen content is said to be about the same as in the photosphere, which is .06% by number of atoms or ions and .8% by mass.

We know that. The isotope ratio information from SOHO/CELIAS and this chart displaying isotopic content of the solar wind was published in 1996, so we have known for almost twenty years the percentage of oxygen and hydrogen and electrons in the solar wind and CMEs.

What no one has bothered to explain is what happens when the ions of hydrogen, oxygen and electrons cool in intimate proximity of each other.

I've said it before …. at the peak temperature of earthbound combustion, in a bonfire or an internal combustion engine, the combustion gasses are in the ionized state and upon cooling form into the exhaust products, H2O, CO2, CO, NOx, HOOC, etc. It is inevitable that the ions in the solar wind cool when they enter the shadow (from the Sun) in the leeward side of any solar system body and when they cool they will obey the same physical laws as they do in the thermodynamic and chemical processes in combustion here on Earth.

Ergo, the megatons of Solar Wind ions, H and O and electrons, become water ..... megatons of water. CMEs are said to occasionally be upwards of 20 Billion Tons. Do the math on how much water can result from .8% of 20 Billion tons.

http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bull ... mi1387.gif

Image


That is correct.

Combustion can render an H20 byproduct. This will function chemically the same in outer space in an ionized/electrochemical environment. Yet this simple phenomenon is ignored in astronomy--at least given only "sidebar" status.

Water is generated by the combustion of the fuel in a car. It comes from the hydrogen in the fuel, plus some of the oxygen from the air. For example, the combustion of octane is:

2C8H18 + 25O2 → 16CO2 + 18H2O + heat.

Burning fuel in a car will produce CO2 and H20 in roughly equal amounts, plus much smaller amounts of a whole bunch of other things.

Usually the H2O will be in the form of water vapour, but if it's cold then this will condense, and this is the liquid water you see coming out of tailpipes of cars. To add, although off-topic somewhat, the "greenhouse gas" that traps most heat is not C02 but water vapor in the atmosphere. C02 makes up barely any of the Earth's atmosphere.
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 Maol » Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:59 pm

seasmith wrote:
It is inevitable that the ions in the solar wind cool when they enter the shadow (from the Sun) in the leeward side of any solar system body and when they cool they will obey the same physical laws as they do in the thermodynamic and chemical processes in combustion here on Earth.



Maol, If molecular coalescing processes were that straight forward, wouldn't the windshield on the space station be icing up ?

As mentioned previously, wouldn't local centers of gravity and local magneto-spherics, as well as temperature; conduce the inception of nuclear coalescence ?

The density seems obvious.
Maol
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Rosetta Reignites Debate on Earth's Oceans

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:14 pm

Maol wrote:
seasmith wrote:
It is inevitable that the ions in the solar wind cool when they enter the shadow (from the Sun) in the leeward side of any solar system body and when they cool they will obey the same physical laws as they do in the thermodynamic and chemical processes in combustion here on Earth.- Maol



Maol, If molecular coalescing processes were that straight forward, wouldn't the windshield on the space station be icing up ?

As mentioned previously, wouldn't local centers of gravity and local magneto-spherics, as well as temperature; conduce the inception of nuclear coalescence ?

The density seems obvious.



Density is not automatically Organization.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2742
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Shoemaker-Levy, how comes it kept outgassing?

Unread postby SirEyes » Thu Jan 22, 2015 5:05 am

Hello everybody, there is a question I never read the answer to. I searched on the forum, sorry if I didn't notice interesting replies.
Given the current mainstream theory, where the come is due to outgassing from pocket-chamber under the surface, how this can possibly agree with what we saw during the disintegration of the Shoemaker-Levi?
I mean, if the body has split in pieces, I would expect most of the pieces not to outgas (the fresh-exposed ones), for a while (until they reach a good cooking).
Also, I would expect a general disruption of the chambers, together with a good decrease of gas "compressed in the pockets", as pockets should be globally destroyed.
Any thoughts?
Thank you!
SirEyes
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 5:27 pm

Re: Shoemaker-Levy, how comes it kept outgassing?

Unread postby D_Archer » Fri Jan 23, 2015 3:52 am

Good observation.

With electrical disintegration the continual out gassing can be explained better.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron