continuum between asteroids and comets

h2ouniverse · Jan 24, 2008

These news from Stardust: http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13224-comet-samples-are-surprisingly-asteroidlike.html Wild 2 seems too wild. That would mean that some inner system objects have formed with a mix of ice. And confirm imho the rock+ice composition of Ceres...

MeteorWayne · Jan 24, 2008

Which is what I have been saying for years. (I believe even in this thread) Some have more dust/rock, some have more ice. Some are all ice, some are all rock. 95% are a mix of both. Without knowing where the median percentage lies, it's hard to say whether ice or rock is predominant. It most likely varies with the formation distance and timing from the sun. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

dmjspace · Jan 24, 2008

These findings are exactly what is predicted by the only currently viable hypothesis on asteroid and comet origins: the exploded planet hypothesis (EPH). Tom Van Flandern, formerly of the U.S. Naval Observatory, has been making successful predictions for at least 10 years based on the EPH. The conventional view that comets and asteroids are fundamentally different beasts is wrong. It's nice to see scientists admitting so when their data dictates it. For more on the EPH and its many fulfilled predictions, see: The Exploded Planet Hypothesis

3488 · Jan 24, 2008

How about asteroids 1566 Icarus & 3200 Phaethon? Burnt out comets??? Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 25, 2008

Because of their sun grazing orbits, that seems quite likely. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

3488 · Jan 27, 2008

Cheers MeteorWayne. I assume 3200 Phaethon is still shedding material, creating the December Geminid meteor stream? Can the meteor stream pass as close to the Sun as 3200 Phaethon's perihelion distance without it being scattered by the intense solar radiation at that distance? Radar image of 3200 Phaethon. Solar intensity is almost a whacking 78 KW/m^2 at that point 0.13 AU. Article here from Spaceflightnow.com. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 27, 2008

It's not clear whether Phaethon is still shedding material. The Geminid stream is quite old, so it would not be necessary for the process to still be ongoing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

majornature · Jan 27, 2008

To me a rock is a rock and an ice ball is and ice ball. The only thing I see that would distinguish a rock and a comet is the ice composition... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We are born. We live. We experiment. We rot. We die. and the whole process starts all over again! Imagine That! <img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 28, 2008

That's the point though. There is not just rocks and iceballs. There are rocky objects with varying percentages of ices, and icy objects with varying percentages of rock and dust. So it's not one or the other, but a range of objects varying from pure rock to pure ices and everything in between. i.e. a continuum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

JonClarke · Jan 28, 2008

Agreed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

dmjspace · Jan 30, 2008

We need to go back to the original predictions of those who developed comet and asteroid models, namely Whipple. The standard "dirty snowball" model clearly differentiated between asteroids and comets. Comets were snowballs. Asteroids were rocks. We now know that no such differentiation exists. Both entities are largely rock and dust, with some relatively insignificant amount of ice (even the driest asteroids are several percent water). Whipple's dirty snowball doesn't exist. So when we judge the different models they must be measured in terms of their predictive ability. The standard (dirty snowball) model has failed to make accurate predictions in all its major aspects. The EPH, which asserts that close up comet observations will show them all to be composed primarily of rock, NOT ice, has been confirmed repeatedly in all recent observations. One of the most astonishing confirmed predictions of the EPH is "roll marks" from de-orbited satellites on Eros, a scenario not expected to occur in any version of the dirty snowball model. For more discussion on that specific prediction and for a direct comparison between the competing dirty snowball and EPH models, see this summary: Deep Impact: Coming clues to the Origin of the Solar System

colesakick · Jan 30, 2008

What gets my goat is that even though experts finally agree that Wild 2 is more asteroid-like than comet-like they still do not publicly examine the reason why Wild 2 has such a spectacular tail. There needs to be an admission that the presence of OH radicals is NOT, and I repeat NOT evidence of water sublimating into space (giving rise to cometary tails as per prior assumptions)! There is another way to produce OH radicals from rocks, electrical machining and/or plasma arching. The specter of validating the Electric Universe model ala Wallace Thornhill, Hannes Alvfen, Anthony Peratt, Don Scott, Eric Lerner, Halton Arp and so many other qualified experts is upon us. Thornhill predicted what the results of the Stardust mission would be based on the EU model. With such accurate predictive powers and the recent admission that Wild 2 is not a comet (not an icy body) I believe its time we are allowed to discuss this issue without being kicked to the P (phenomena) curb as in the past. The products returned by the Stardust probe were clearly exposed to extreme heat. Now our NASA experts want us to believe that somehow this body was formed in near the sun and then tossed out to the region where comets form, PLEASE! Call a spade a spade, those particles were subjected to extreme heat as they were being machined off of Wild 2 as it was being electrocuted by the sun. I would suggest we design another mission to collect samples of a “comet” before and after the corona and tail form, that would give us a definitive answer. In the meantime let’s not treat the EU model as anathema to “hard” science. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 30, 2008

Now wait, you can't say Wild 2 has a spectacular tail, then in the next paragraph say it's not a comet. Do you have an image of a spectacular tail from Wild 2? I don't know of any. It's a rather inactive comet, from what I recall. And you are wrong in suggesting that anyone has suggested that the object formed near the sun, only that materials that were included in the comet were formed near the sun. This suggests a transport mechanism of previously heated materials to locations further out in the protoplanetary disk where they were incorporated by objects forming there, such as Wild 2. MW <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 30, 2008

"Whipple's dirty snowball doesn't exist." Actually some comets are almost all ice. Hyakutake has a long ion (gas) tail, but no visible dust tail. Hence, almost all ices. "The EPH, which asserts that close up comet observations will show them all to be composed primarily of rock, NOT ice, has been confirmed repeatedly in all recent observations" This is pure speculation on your part. Huge amounts of ices sublimate from comets, even if the ices are not on the surface. This has been one of the major findings of the missions to comets. We have learned that the surface of even icy objects is covered by an organic goo created by the UV alteration of the molecules present, many of which likely started from ices (not water ice). We have learned that vents form that allow the sublimated ices to escape the interior. We still do not unequivocally know how much of the interior is ice vs rock. Also, remember, we only have a sample of 4 comet nuclei we have imaged up close. "One of the most astonishing confirmed predictions of the EPH is "roll marks" from de-orbited satellites on Eros, a scenario not expected to occur in any version of the dirty snowball model." Please realize the simplistic dirty snowball model of whipple's 1950s has long been modified as we have leaned more. That's how science works. Second, can you please show me some images that show "roll marks from deorbited satellites" on Eros?? From what I recall, (and I will go back and check on the ones I have) there are roll marks from rocks/boulders, but none that would show, without a doubt, that they came from deorbited satellites. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 30, 2008

Oh BTW, your link is rather worthless, since it was written well before the Deep Impact mission came to fruition, and incorporates no data at all from the encounter. IMHO, of course. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

robnissen · Jan 30, 2008

I believe its time we are allowed to discuss this issue without being kicked to the P (phenomena) curb as in the past. That is just not true, we have had long and interesting discussions on the Electric Universe here. MichealMozina regularly posts interesting, well thought-out posts on the topic which are not exiled to p-beria. But there are plenty of EU posts that are exiled there, you will generally find that they include the words conspiracy, cover-up, lies, or maybe the phrase NASA experts want us to believe A rational conversation about more exotic hypothesis is always welcome, but ramblings about what evil scieintists want us to believe properly belong in p-beria.

michaelmozina · Jan 30, 2008

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />That is just not true, we have had long and interesting discussions on the Electric Universe here. MichealMozina regularly posts interesting, well thought-out posts on the topic which are not exiled to p-beria.<hr /></blockquote> I would agree wholeheartedly. IMO this forum is one of the more tolerant, well moderated, and open minded forums on the web as it relates to EU theory. I haven't been censored here in any way, and I've made some rather blunt comments at times. I have discussed EU theory here for about two years now, and I have gained a great deal of respect for the way this forum works and for the individuals that moderate these forums. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

exoscientist · Feb 2, 2008

I don't have access to the article in Science: Reports Comparison of Comet 81P/Wild 2 Dust with Interplanetary Dust from Comets. Science 25 January 2008:Vol. 319. no. 5862, pp. 447 - 450 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;319/5862/447 Is the conclusion that most of the material formed close to the Sun based solely on the fact that they were minerals formed at high temperatures? If so, then there is still the possibility this was due to comets being subjected to radiaogenic heating early in the solar systems history: exoscientist 08/09/06 10:17 AM "The elephant in the room." http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=550963 Bob Clark <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Feb 2, 2008

Thanx, I'll look up that article. It's in the unread pile <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> There seems to be a common misperception that the Wild 2 data suggests that the comet was heated to a high temperature, that is NOT what is being said. From a Jan 4 Science article " Particles transported from the hot inner zones of the solar nebula are though to constitute ~ 10% of the mass of Wild 2" That's a reference to a 2004 Wild 2 article in Science 304 by D.E. Brownlee. MW <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

exoscientist · Feb 3, 2008

Thanks for that reference MeteorWayne. I found a news release on this Science article: Stardust Formed Close To Sun. ScienceDaily (Jan. 8, 2008) "About 10 percent of the mass of Wild 2 is estimated to be from particles transported out from hot inner zones to the cold zone where Wild 2 formed. The paper concludes that this is how these grains with unusual isotope ratios go incorporated into a comet." ... "Bajt, who studied tracks in aerogel caused by cometary particles rich in noble gases, used infrared spectroscopy, which is very sensitive in detecting organic molecules. She found none, at least not in the pieces of aerogel she examined. The group concluded that the carriers of the noble gases must be the refractory metal-metal sulfide-metal carbide grains, unlike what many expected would be a meteoritic Q-phase, which is known to be organic. "That’s the first-order finding of the paper, and it’s a rather startling one,” said lead author Robert Pepin from the University of Minnesota. "The second conclusion is that the ion irradiation is the only known mechanism that could load the grains (by ion implantation) to the very high concentrations based on mass density estimates from X-ray absorption spectroscopy by Andrew Westphal and his team at the (Space Science Laboratory, UC Berkeley." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103182851.htm If the unusual isotope ratios came from ion implantation this also something that could have been caused by radiogenic heating. Bob Clark <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

continuum between asteroids and comets

h2ouniverse

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

3488

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

3488

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

majornature

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

colesakick

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

robnissen

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

exoscientist

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

exoscientist

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page