Asteroids

[Jatslo]

If there is just as much matter out there that is the "equal opposite" then why is this not given more attention?

Antimatter is given a lot of attention, Viscount Aero.

[Jatslo]

If there is just as much matter out there that is the "equal opposite" then why is this not given more attention?

Antimatter is given a lot of attention, Viscount Aero; however, I'm not sure there's a 50:50 ratio, or an even amount of each. This, I assume, is not a good thing. Where did some of it go?

[viscount aero]

If there is just as much matter out there that is the "equal opposite" then why is this not given more attention?

Antimatter is given a lot of attention, Viscount Aero; however, I'm not sure there's a 50:50 ratio, or an even amount of each. This, I assume, is not a good thing. Where did some of it go?

I'm getting the picture that antimatter isn't actually accepted to exist by a consensus.

[Jatslo]

mainstream theories

I'm not a main-streamer by any definition, but I am trained in the scientific method. Pay close attention to my signature: "...whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth..."

The United States is working on some pretty serious stuff; things you can't comprehend.

~ CHEERS

[Jatslo]

I'm getting the picture that antimatter isn't actually accepted to exist by a consensus.

It best be not ignored. There's more evidence for Antimatter than there is Dark Matter.

[Jatslo]

I don't have anything against Anti-matter but didn't the Gamma Ray detector detect Gamma Rays?
Is not the anti-matter a guess? Is there no other way Gamma Rays might come about? Could the presence of Gamma rays be helping to trigger the thunderstorm?

Gamma rays are detected as an result of some cataclysm, in which some of those cataclysms cause chain reactions. The Mother of them all is the Big Bang. Gamma Ray Bursts come in second place. Antimatter is a best guess, Yes. Gamma rays are a penetrating electromagnetic radiation of a kind that arises from the radioactive decay of atomic nuclei, which includes the annihilation of a particle. You'll need more than a hammer and chisel to make them ;o)

~ Cheers

[StefanR]

Data gathered by Dawn were analyzed by a team of researchers from EPFL as well as the Universities of Bern, Brittany (France) and Arizona (USA). Conclusion: the asteroid's crust is almost three times thicker than expected. The study does not only have implications for the structure of this celestial object, located between Mars and Jupiter. Their results also challenge a fundamental component in planet formation models, namely the composition of the original cloud of matter that aggregated together, heated, melted and then crystallized to form planets.

At EPFL's Earth and Planetary Science Laboratory (EPSL), led by Philippe Gillet, Harold Clenet had a look at the composition of the rocks scattered across Vesta's ground. "What is striking is the absence of a particular mineral, olivine, on the asteroid's surface," said the researcher.

Olivine is a main component of planetary mantles and should have been found in large quantities on the surface of Vesta, due to a double meteorite impact that, according to computer simulations, "dug" the celestial body's southern pole to a depth of 80 km, catapulting large amounts of materials to the surface.

The two impacts were so powerful that more than 5% of Earth's meteorites come from Vesta. "But these cataclysms were not strong enough to pierce through the crust and reach the asteroid's mantle," Clenet continued.

The meteorites originating from Vesta and found on Earth confirm this since they generally lack Olivine, or contain only minute amounts compared to the amount observed in planetary mantles. Also, the spacecraft Dawn did not find olivine in the vicinity of the two impact craters.

"This means that the crust of the asteroid is not 30 km thick, as suggested by the models, but more than 80 km," said Clenet.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 071514.php

The asteroid 4 Vesta was recently found to have two large impact craters near its south pole, exposing subsurface material. Modelling suggested that surface material in the northern hemisphere of Vesta came from a depth of about 20 kilometres, whereas the exposed southern material comes from a depth of 60 to 100 kilometres. Large amounts of olivine from the mantle were not seen, suggesting that the outer 100 kilometres or so is mainly igneous crust. Here we analyse the data on Vesta and conclude that the crust–mantle boundary (or Moho) is deeper than 80 kilometres.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 13499.html

[Metryq]

Someone on a sci-fi forum linked this article arguing that Ceres would be a better choice for colonization than Mars. One of the arguments is that Ceres contains even more fresh water than Earth:

This 100-km-thick mantle (23%–28% of Ceres by mass; 50% by volume) contains 200 million cubic kilometers of water, which is more than the amount of fresh water on Earth. This result is supported by the observations made by the Keck telescope in 2002 and by evolutionary modeling.
—Wikipedia

The Wikipedia article naturally refers to the nebular hypothesis of Solar system formation:

Also, some characteristics of its surface and history (such as its distance from the Sun, which weakened solar radiation enough to allow some fairly low-freezing-point components to be incorporated during its formation), point to the presence of volatile materials in the interior of Ceres.

The first quote above states, as fact, that Ceres contains this massive amount of water, while the introductory paragraphs of the article are less emphatic:

Ceres appears to be differentiated into a rocky core and icy mantle, and may harbor an internal ocean of liquid water under its surface.

The passage that got me was:

In January 2014, emissions of water vapor were detected from several regions of Ceres. This was somewhat unexpected, as large bodies in the asteroid belt do not typically emit vapor, a hallmark of comets.

So, is it actually known that Ceres has all this water, or is it more mainstream speculation, like the idea that comets are "dirty snowballs"? Is the detected water vapor perhaps the same surface sputtering mixing with "Solar wind" proposed by EU for comets?

So, is the promise of beach front property on Ceres a sucker's bet, like unseen beach front property in Florida?

[viscount aero]

This is false comet theory V2.0

Always be skeptical of a claim of a so-called "icy mantle" allegedly/supposedly detected on an extra-terrestrial world. This is the same approach the mainstream has appended to comets a la "escaping/venting water vapor" when no such vents are ever observed to exist. Look how far that idea has taken society far away from reality-based science when no "water vapor vents" or "icy mantles' have ever been observed to exist via prior missions to comets with space probes. Yet they sound the alarm because the Keck telescope was used with data run through a model?

That said:

The claims overlook the growing likelihood that Earth has at least 3 or 4X its surface ocean volume present within its own crust and mantle as hyrdrated silicates (which then synthesize into water as they are pushed up under tectonic and volcanic pressure). In other words, water is created within the planet and not something delivered to the planet externally (which mainstream science tends to distort by erroneously appending the cosmic water source for life to comets--a totally false notion--so false that it is "not even false"). But isn't it interesting that the mainstream will not hesitate to speculate and even assert that many celestial bodies have these alleged "subsurface/internal liquid water oceans" but not apply that to Earth? Have you ever wondered why this is so considering Earth is the only planet we know of with most of its surface covered in liquid water?

The internal ocean applies, too, to crude oil which is created by the planet itself and constantly replenished. It is not a fossil fuel. And water is not externally delivered to the planets. Water is endemic to the planets' structure and bodily chemistry. To add, Earth dwarfs Ceres in volume. Earth is a water planet. The article's claims about Ceres are false and at best sensationalist. In other words, if you believe comets delivered the oceans to Earth and are water bodies, and that a dwarf planet such as Ceres has more water than the Earth, then believe the article's claims.

[Metryq]

Thanks, Aero. I didn't believe it—that's why I asked. Can't wait to see that Wikipedia article totally rewritten when Dawn visits in 2015. (Then I woke up; I know, I was dreaming. The lack of "more fresh water than on Earth" will be explained somehow. Maybe the dark 'brane of another universe was entangled with Ceres causing the water to vanish into another dimension—but only temporarily.)

[viscount aero]

Thanks, Aero. I didn't believe it—that's why I asked. Can't wait to see that Wikipedia article totally rewritten when Dawn visits in 2015. (Then I woke up; I know, I was dreaming. The lack of "more fresh water than on Earth" will be explained somehow. Maybe the dark 'brane of another universe was entangled with Ceres causing the water to vanish into another dimension—but only temporarily.)

You're welcome.

Bear in mind, too, that despite the self-confidence in my own inferences I fully accept culpability were I to be proven incorrect. I don't absolutely know what is on Ceres, or within it, anymore than they do.

But the indirect nature of their modeling is interestingly similar to their idea of comets which has already been disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet grown adults still insist that comets are icy worlds seeding planetary oceans! And now Ceres is such a body!

But let us give them the benefit of the doubt. Let us say that Ceres has a subsurface/mantle-wide fresh water reservoir. Ok then how is this water sitting there as liquid when on Earth the water is broken down into compounds within rocks [that is then synthesized and carried to the surface]? Why is this idea not ok for Ceres when it exists on Earth [hydrated silicates]? In other words, if there is a giant standing ocean on the Earth but its subsurface water content is not directly in liquid form, why is it in liquid form within Ceres? This contradicts the process and creation of water oceans.

Let's take this even farther: What if all surface oceans, including the atmospheres of terrestrial planets which are one and joint with their oceans--what if these systems derive from the planet itself, replenished by the planet? Isn't this the "baffling" result they are seeing at Titan? Cassini scientists are baffled that Titan's methanogenic atmosphere has not yet "burned off" or escaped to space. So it must be replenished.

But they only mention replenishment as a passing comment--not to be taken seriously. Or if taken seriously it is met with total mystery. Why? Why is planetary creation of its own oceans and atmospheres not on their radar of thinking? Why is the only thing allowed to be created by a planetary body molten lava and rocks? What about everything we see on the surface? Did all of that get seeded, too, by an extraterrestrial impactor?

Until scientists begin accepting that a planet is a living, creative entity they will always be looking outside instead of in.

In the case of Ceres they're looking "in" but modeling their claims based on outdated theories that derive from icy comet thinking. I would be more apt to believe the scientists were they not basing their claims on "evolutionary models" which is code speak for "we're making this up." Were tectonics or volcanism directly observed to be venting steam then that would be another story. That would then mimic the Earth.

[Metryq]

Agreed, we could be wrong about Ceres, too. The thing that really annoys me is the way chickens are counted before eggs are even laid, let alone hatched. In the case of Ceres the author of the the article mentioned above argues that the dwarf planet would make a better colony than Mars. The most tenuous suggestion of water suddenly becomes a vast ocean of more fresh water than on Earth. (I wish I had stock market investments that multiplied that fast.) In light of all the close-up comet missions, this is recklessly pushing the speculation-as-fact trend that has become so common in astronomy.

Then there's NASA's "warp drive." People are already planning picnic lunches at Rigel Kent, all based on some laboratory curiosity that's as nebulous as the "Casimir force." All they need is a Jupiter mass of "exotic/negative matter." And if it turns out that the "fabric" of "space-time" does not bend, ripple, or twist? (Dowdye? Crothers? Who are they?)

[viscount aero]

Agreed, we could be wrong about Ceres, too. The thing that really annoys me is the way chickens are counted before eggs are even laid, let alone hatched. In the case of Ceres the author of the the article mentioned above argues that the dwarf planet would make a better colony than Mars. The most tenuous suggestion of water suddenly becomes a vast ocean of more fresh water than on Earth. (I wish I had stock market investments that multiplied that fast.) In light of all the close-up comet missions, this is recklessly pushing the speculation-as-fact trend that has become so common in astronomy.

Then there's NASA's "warp drive." People are already planning picnic lunches at Rigel Kent, all based on some laboratory curiosity that's as nebulous as the "Casimir force." All they need is a Jupiter mass of "exotic/negative matter." And if it turns out that the "fabric" of "space-time" does not bend, ripple, or twist? (Dowdye? Crothers? Who are they?)

I agree, speculation-as-fact has become the gold standard of cosmology today. To add, although spherical and a planetoid, Ceres is so small that it could be a moon of Earth's moon and still be dwarfed in size. It would be somewhat like saying a comet is a better place to set up a human colony than Mars. Check out the size comparison: http://spaceinfo.com.au/2012/05/11/gian ... -revealed/ So as a colony there is no room for human expansion or conquest. At least on Mars you could possibly mine it for ore or maybe oil (although that is speculative )

[Frantic]

Sorry if this has been posted before, but just found this recent article with the standard baffled scientist.

http://www.space.com/26819-potentially- ... ne+Feed%29

A study in 2003 suggested that if asteroid 1950 DA smashed into the Atlantic Ocean about 360 miles (580 km) from the United States, the resulting blast could be equal to a 60,000-megaton explosion, or about 3.75 million times stronger than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, causing tsunami waves at least 200 feet high (60 meters) to crash against the East Coast.

Unexpectedly, the scientists found 1950 DA is a porous rubble pile, about half of which is empty space. They also discovered that this loose collection of rocks is spinning faster than the forces of gravity or friction would allow it to remain in one piece, which suggests mysterious forces are helping this clump of debris to stick together.

"I was expecting to find a high-density metallic asteroid, as such an asteroid wouldn't require cohesive forces to hold itself together under its fast rotation," lead study author Ben Rozitis, an astronomer at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, told Space.com. "Instead we found the opposite!"

Seems like such an obvious leap to me, if gravitational forces don't work, pick another one, the only other known force applicable at these distances would be electrical, at least investigate it. I think the idea that we have identified the asteroid as a threat and predicted the results of it hitting us; and yet we know nothing about it, says something about the irresponsible results reported by science today. I don't think there is even evidence it is a rubble pile, simply observed trajectory and mass input into a gravity simulation. And they speak as if it is fact.

Someone looking at our solar system from the outside would conclude it is mostly empty space, a rubble pile held together by mysterious forces and spinning too fast. Using the assumptions that declare the asteroid a rubble pile, our solar system too would be a rubble pile. Does this not immediately tell you gravity is not the driving force? It cannot explain the galaxy, the stars, the solar system, asteroids or comets.

[Frantic]

This is actually more interesting from the same article.

Asteroid 1950 DA is covered with sandy particles known as regolith. At the same time, the asteroid spins quickly, completing one revolution every 2.12 hours. The centripetal force the asteroid experiences — the same force that causes the arms of a spinning ice skater to drift outward — should fling its regolith away

In the article to explain this they are looking for other forces, weak interactions, Van Der Waal, even some electrical forces are mentioned. I think they will come to a new realization though. Not just our solar system, even asteroids are surrounded by dark matter halos. Each Planet as well. And atoms as well, a dark halo for them too. Current is only the acceleration of electrons due to the massive gravitational forces of dark halos around atoms. I think I just united the 4 forces, Nobel please.