Mercury Updates

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: Mercury Updates

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:44 am

Dave Smith wrote
...the practicality of re-arranging the forum into planetary sections would be challenging, to say the least. Had that been done as the forum was set up, maybe it would have worked.

I thought that may well be the case. Never to worry, it was just an idea.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Mercury Updates

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:23 am

davesmith_au wrote:But a GOOD idea would be for anyone posting something new which is applicable to a single planet or it's moons, to start a new thread in the same manner as this one, eg. "Saturn updates", "Mars updates" etc and those threads could be used for general press-releases etc pertaining to that particular planet.

Cheers, Dave Smith.


But, an even better idea would be for people posting news to see if there's an existing thread on the same topic, into which can be posted the update, such that it preserves the train of intellectual inquiry already established and does not fork a conversation into multiple threads.

Unless, of course, some specific sub-topic is of sufficient importance to promote to its own topic. IE, if they find little green men on Mars, it will probably be important enough to rate its own headline, as opposed to getting crammed into a "Mars updates" thread.

You get the idea(s)... Just my 2c.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Mercury versus comets? Hydroxyl radicals / water?

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:18 am

davesmith_au wrote:Well, here's the latest on the MESSENGER findings and of all things, they are now banging on about having found WATER in Mercury's exosphere.

http://www.planetary.org/news/2008/0703_MESSENGER_Scientists_Astonished_to.html

The Planetary Society wrote:As MESSENGER flew past the night side of Mercury in January, its Fast Imaging Plasma Spectrometer (FIPS) scooped up ions from an atmosphere so tenuous that it's usually called an "exosphere." FIPS measured the expected amounts of ions like sodium, potassium, and calcium that had previously been detected in Mercury's exosphere, but to the science team's great surprise there was also water present, and in large amounts. "Nobody expected that. I don't know a single person that did. We were astonished, just astonished," said MESSENGER science team member Thomas Zurbuchen.


This, in my mind, adds serious weight to the reasons Wal Thornhill gives for finding "water" in cometary comas - it's not water, it's ionized particles of the consituents of water, caused by sputtering, from the solar "wind" interacting with the rocky surface. As EU proponents have suggested all along, it's an electrical phenomena.

Funny, NASA scientists are "surprised" by this finding, but I've learned enough about EU for it not to surprise me at all... in fact I distinctly remember thinking about the possibility of them "finding water" when the flyby was done. Time to start writing down my "silly thoughts" I think...

Cheers, Dave Smith.


Beautiful!

It amuses me to see them use the exact same process that Wal uses to explain the OH (hydroxyl) radicals found in the comas of comets.

(MESSENGER Scientists 'Astonished' to Find Water in Mercury's Thin Atmosphere; July 3, 2008)
http://www.planetary.org/news/2008/0703 ... ed_to.html

Third, the process of chemical sputtering could create water where none existed before from the ingredients of solar wind and Mercury rock, as Zurburchen explains.

"The solar wind is highly ionized. Those are radicals -- they want to make connections with everything that they can. Imagine a solar wind hydrogen showing up and hitting the surface. It weathers whatever the mineral is, and steals an oxygen. If you do that, you get something like OH-, for example." OH-, also known as a hydroxyl group, would produce a peak at atomic mass 17 on the FIPS spectrum. "You can do it in reverse -- an oxygen from the solar wind can steal a hydrogen. The process is called chemical sputtering."

vs.

(First Evidence of Comet Ice – What Does it Mean?; February 13, 2006)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=nm613913

The flaw in the conventional approach is that only gas-phase chemical reactions and reactions induced by solar radiation (photolysis) are considered. The far more energetic molecular and atomic reactions due to plasma discharge sputtering of an electrically charged comet nucleus are not even contemplated [see below]. Yet this model solves many comet mysteries that are seldom mentioned.

The hydroxyl radical, OH, is the most abundant cometary radical. It is detected in the coma at some distance from the comet nucleus, where it is assumed that water (H2O) is broken down by solar UV radiation to form OH, H and O. It is chiefly the presence of this radical that leads to estimates of the amount of water ice sublimating from the comet nucleus. The comas of O and OH are far less extensive than the H coma but have comparable density.

The negatively charged oxygen atom, or negative oxygen ion, has been detected close to cometary nuclei. And the spectrum of neutral oxygen (O) shows a "forbidden line" indicative of the presence of an "intense" electric field. The discovery at comet Halley of negative ions puzzled investigators because they are easily destroyed by solar radiation. They wrote, "an efficient production mechanism, so far unidentified, is required to account for the observed densities." And the intense electric field near the comet nucleus is inexplicable if it is merely an inert body ploughing through the solar wind.

Let's see how the electrical model of comets explains these mysteries. The electric field near the comet nucleus is expected if a comet is a highly negatively charged body, relative to the solar wind. Cathode sputtering of the comet nucleus will strip atoms and molecules directly from solid rock and charge them negatively. So the presence of negative oxygen and other ions close to the comet nucleus is to be expected. Negative oxygen ions will be accelerated away from the comet in the cathode jets and combine with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical at some distance from the nucleus.

The important point is that the OH does not need to come from water ice on, or in, the comet. Of course, some water is likely to be present on a comet or asteroid. It depends upon their parent body. And since there are many moons in the outer solar system and the rings of Saturn with copious water ice, we may expect some smaller bodies like comets and asteroids to have some too. But what is obvious from the closeup images of comet nuclei is that they look like dark, burnt rocks. They do not look icy. Their appearance fits the electrical model and not the poorly consolidated dirty ice model.

or

(The Electric Comet; )
http://thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

But a much different vantage point on the water question is possible. When astronomers view the comas of comets spectroscopically, what they actually see is the hydroxyl radical (OH), which they assume to be a residue of water (H2O) broken down by the ultraviolet light of the Sun (photolysis). This assumption is not only unwarranted, it requires a speed of “processing” by solar radiation beyond anything that can be demonstrated experimentally.

The mysteries find direct answers electrically—in the transaction between a negatively charged comet nucleus and the Sun. In the electric model, negative oxygen ions are accelerated away from the comet in energetic jets, then combine preferentially with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical and the neutral hydrogen gathered around the coma in vast concentric bubbles. These abundances simply confirm the energetic charge exchange between the nucleus and the Sun.

The electric model thus resolves two problems for the standard theory: 1) Cometologists have never verified that the assumed photolysis is feasible on the super-efficient scale their “explanation” requires; 2) Neutral hydrogen is far too plentiful in the coma to be the “leftover” of the hypothesized conversion of water into OH. But if the negatively charged nucleus provides the electrons in a charge exchange with the solar wind, the dilemma is resolved and the vast hydrogen envelope is a predictable effect.

They seem to have lifted Wal Thornhill's explanation of OH and/or water production without attribution. Okay, okay, maybe they came to the same conclusion independently... Just more fuel for the pyre!

It seems they at least understand the PROCESS may be VALID. Now, if they'd just recognize the same process may be possible @ comets and recognize the electrical nature of the interaction... ;)

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Mercury Updates

Unread postby rduke » Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:41 pm

Wait..

I thought Venus has a mag field??!?

And that Mars has a very patchy and small one... Don't any of the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune have even the slightest MF??..
User avatar
rduke
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:48 pm

Re: Mercury Updates

Unread postby rangerover777 » Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:03 pm

Good day,

Though the question of water on Mercury seems more like a publicity stunt.
I would go back to a question I asked before about planet’s magnetic core (in this
Case Mercury).

The article says : “Researchers have been puzzled by Mercury's field because its iron core was supposed to have cooled long ago and stopped generating magnetism. Some researchers have thought that the field may have been a relic of the past, frozen in the outer crust.

MESSENGER data suggest otherwise: Mercury's field appears to be generated by an active dynamo in the planet's core. It is not a relic.

"MESSENGER's measurements indicate that, like Earth, Mercury's magnetic field is mostly dipolar, which means it has a north and south magnetic poles," says lead author Brian Anderson of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Md. "The fact that it is dipolar, and that we did not find the signature shorter-wavelength anomalies that would signify patches of magnetized crust, supports the view that we’re seeing a modern dynamo. We are eager for the October flyby and the year in orbit to see if this is the case elsewhere on the planet and confirm that the field comes from the core."

1. How come molten iron (or iron/nickel) can be responsible for a magnetic field,
if while they are molten - they looses their magnetic properties ???
2. And if scientists thinking that Mercury core cooled down - that maybe a good
reason to have a magnetic core (it’s all up side down) ?!?!?
3. Did anyone ever seen a model of a dynamo make electricity with a
molten iron core ?
4. “measurements indicate that, like Earth, Mercury's magnetic field is mostly
dipolar, which means it has a north and south magnetic poles,"
- does someone is making a joke here ?
5. Why to find shorter-waves anomalies signature in the crust - in order to view
it as “Modern Dynamo” ?
- The current "dynamo / planet" view is inadequate to make electric currents, how the
Modern one can be better ?
- I suspect their measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field are based on their
measurements of earth filed - which is done right, but the interpretations of
the data is wrong, since it seems that they measure the ferrous minerals and
metals in the crust and not magnetic radiation per se.

Image

Raw data can be amazing (especially pictures), the point is what to make out
of it and to go back to conclusions.

By the way Rduke, to answer your question : all stars, galaxies, planets & moons have
magnetic fields, it's not a given, it's a condition for existence.


Cheers
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Mercury Updates

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:41 pm

So, When *is* Mercury Like a Comet?

I wonder...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Mercury Updates

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:49 am

mgmirkin wrote:
(Look)...to see if there's an existing thread on the same topic...


A suggestion put out by many.
I look before starting this thread, but none other had Mercury in the subject heading.
Think we lost some in the 'crash'.

~
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Mercury Updates

Unread postby MGmirkin » Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:05 am

Quite. Wasn't talking about this thread specifically, just in general. In response to a "general" idea previously posted. No slight intended toward the author of this thread. :)

Don't think I saw any others on Mercury hereabouts either. I'm just saying that a quick scan of threads prior to posting anything, to see if there *is* already something out there on the same topic (in this thread's case, there wasn't), is helpful to avoid forking a conversation or making a mod have to merge them later. ;)

Back to the Mercury issues! :D

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Mercury Updates - Latest News, WATER on Mercury???...

Unread postby Ben D » Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:37 pm

davesmith_au wrote:Well, here's the latest on the MESSENGER findings and of all things, they are now banging on about having found WATER in Mercury's exosphere.

http://www.planetary.org/news/2008/0703_MESSENGER_Scientists_Astonished_to.html

The Planetary Society wrote:As MESSENGER flew past the night side of Mercury in January, its Fast Imaging Plasma Spectrometer (FIPS) scooped up ions from an atmosphere so tenuous that it's usually called an "exosphere." FIPS measured the expected amounts of ions like sodium, potassium, and calcium that had previously been detected in Mercury's exosphere, but to the science team's great surprise there was also water present, and in large amounts. "Nobody expected that. I don't know a single person that did. We were astonished, just astonished," said MESSENGER science team member Thomas Zurbuchen.



How about Louis Frank's theory, first proposed, more than 10 years ago, that the Earth was being bombarded by cosmic snowballs at the rate of as many as 30 a minute, is there any merit in giving this consideration for the reason water was present in Mercury's exosphere?

Link

New York Times article
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:43 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Mercury Updates

Unread postby nick c » Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:13 am

hi Ben D,
A problem with Frank's theory is that it is tied into the 'dirty snowball' comet theory, which even in mainstream is on shaky ground. The 'dirty snowball' comet theory was put forth to explain the tail and coma of comets as the result of sublimating ices, we have sent probes to several comets and they seem to have compositions similar to asteroids. The EU explanation does not require comets to be composed of ices, or have ices concealed in their interiors. This doesn't preclude the possibility that there could be chunks of (water) ice in the solar system, only that the observed features of comets are not caused by sublimation of water ices.
It does seem unusual that in the last few weeks Nasa is discovering water everywhere they look...Mars, Moon, Mercury!

Nick C
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Mercury Updates

Unread postby Ben D » Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:41 am

nick c wrote:hi Ben D,
A problem with Frank's theory is that it is tied into the 'dirty snowball' comet theory, which even in mainstream is on shaky ground. The 'dirty snowball' comet theory was put forth to explain the tail and coma of comets as the result of sublimating ices, we have sent probes to several comets and they seem to have compositions similar to asteroids. The EU explanation does not require comets to be composed of ices, or have ices concealed in their interiors. This doesn't preclude the possibility that there could be chunks of (water) ice in the solar system, only that the observed features of comets are not caused by sublimation of water ices.
It does seem unusual that in the last few weeks Nasa is discovering water everywhere they look...Mars, Moon, Mercury!

Nick C


Thanks Nick c,
I understand that Franks' theory was initially rejected by mainstream but he worked at it long and hard and eventually provided enough evidence to at least bring some over to his 'view'.

Since the EU explanation does not preclude water/ice being associated with these small house size 'comets', it seems to me to be something to consider wrt the water found in Mercury's exosphere.

Yes, there does seem to be some synchronicity associated with NASA's reporting finding water everywhere recently,...heralding the Aquarian Age maybe! :lol:
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:43 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Mercury Updates

Unread postby MGmirkin » Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:18 am

Ben D wrote:heralding the Aquarian Age maybe! :lol:


o_O ~ Oy!

Nonetheless, amusement is to yet be had...

(NASA Sees Comets Entering Atmosphere)
http://www.panspermia.org/streaks.htm

"We detect these objects at a rate that suggest Earth is being bombarded by five to 30 small comets per minute, or thousands per day." Comets are known to contain frozen water and are sometimes called "dirty snowballs".

...The incoming objects, which Frank (right) estimates to be the size of a small house, pose no threat to people on Earth, nor to astronauts in orbit. "They break up and are destroyed at 600 to 15,000 miles above the Earth," Frank noted. "In fact, this relatively gentle 'cosmic rain' — which possibly contains simple organic compounds — may well have nurtured the development of life on our planet."

...To everyone's surprise, the objects seem to break up so much higher than they would if the atmosphere were the disrupting force. Frank proposes that Earth's magnetic field is the cause, but this mechanism needs further study. It will be interesting to see how the story unfolds. If they are real, the "gentle rain" of these objects could easily deliver viable bacterial spores and viruses to Earth.


So, they seem to say that the atmosphere is not the force breaking these things up... The Earth's magnetic field, he says... How does a magnetic field break up a "comet" exactly? Again, seems a bit tied up in the "dirty snowball" theory (more-or-less defunct now, insofar as I'm concerned after Stardust, etc.). But the "magnetic field" idea is only a hop skip and a jump from the electric theory of a charged interloper feeling the effect of our planet's ionosphere or large solid charged body (the planet itself).

Just a random musing. ;)

But, I see now perhaps where you're going with the comparison? What if they really are just little stony bits, but a similar sputtering mechanism is responsible for OH / H2O production off of the things as they encounter the atmosphere and perhaps sputter off Hydrogen or Oxygen in the presence of our atmosphere, whichi may contain the complimentary part of the hydroxyl radical or water molecule. An interesting thought.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Mercury Updates

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:44 pm

~
MERCURY'S UNSEEN SIDE:

Image

Do I see 'field lines' of maybe a magnetic dipole ??
:?:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/07oct_firstresults.htm?list1066595
~
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Mercury Updates

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:49 pm

Image
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Mercury Updates

Unread postby substance » Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:26 am

Shouldn`t a collision crater be more.. hm oval maybe? Wonder how they explain the flat bottom. :D
My personal blog about science, technology, society and politics. - Putredo Mundi
User avatar
substance
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:07 am
Location: Germany

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest