Deep Impact Update

[siriusmre]

Is this some sort of lame attempt to bait me into another thread-killing/-moving flame war, Yevaud? Lame.<br /><br />I think that it is abundantly clear what I think. I have posted what I believe is going on with comets--and other phenomena--many, many times. However, my ideas are somehow deemed so threatening to the oh-so-fragile <i>status quo</i> by the so-called "Mission Control Team" here that my posts/threads are systematically shouted down, moved to Phenomena, or just outright deleted. I do not believe for one minute that you are honestly interested in a real discussion.<br /><br />So save your ham-handed provocations.<br /><br />I will present a counter hypothesis as soon as you present the one that explains all about--and proves!--how "cometesimals" formed from material that started out close to a star (the new <i>ad hoc</i> add-on), but somehow got flung out to the "Oort cloud" and then somehow formed layered comets. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tdamskov]

Here's one theory:<br /><br />The rocky material in the comets may predate the solar system! Olivine is one of the by-products of the supernova which ignited the solar system, and could have ended up as part of comets. It's even possible to test if this theory holds water by analysing the isotopic ratios in the olivine which differ between processed (planetary) rock and condensed supernova ejecta.<br /><br />Now back to that theory of yours, Sirius.

 

[siriusmre]

For Yevaud and tdamskov:<br /><br />This thread pretty much sums it up: http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=phenomena&Number=465945&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=<br /><br />Thanks to colesakick! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Here's one theory:<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />First of all, this is a hypothesis, at best.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The rocky material in the comets may predate the solar system!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />And monkeys MAY fly out your butt. I wouldn't count on it, though.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Olivine is one of the by-products of the supernova which ignited the solar system,...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />And you know that a supernova "ignited the solar system"...how?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>...and could have ended up as part of comets.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yes. See my prior comment about the monkeys. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It's even possible to test if this theory holds water by analysing the isotopic ratios in the olivine which differ between processed (planetary) rock and condensed supernova ejecta.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br />See, this assumes that the olivine which we captured with Stardust was NOT manufactured within the coma of the comet itself. It assumes that the olivine--in whatever isotopes--was NOT electrically etched off the surface of the comet. But, what if it was? The evidence would seem to support that as well.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Now back to that theory of yours, Sirius.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Again, we're really talking hypotheses here. But, as I have said before, the EU is no more "my" hypothesis than the solar nebula accretion hypothesis is yours. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

All right, be nice. There's no need to get so crude about disagreeing with others. Disagreement is fine; it's what makes discussions like this interesting! We shouldn't be hostile to one another because of it.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>See, this assumes that the olivine which we captured with Stardust was NOT manufactured within the coma of the comet itself. It assumes that the olivine--in whatever isotopes--was NOT electrically etched off the surface of the comet. But, what if it was? The evidence would seem to support that as well.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Either the olivine was manufactured in the comet or it wasn't; I don't think it's unreasonable to try to pursue one of those two avenues. In fact there's a third possibility: the olivine might be an unexpected contamination and actually have nothing to do with the comet. It seems unlikely to me, but it is possible. Trying to explain how contaminants of such size could've gotten into the collector could be an interesting avenue to pursue.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Again, we're really talking hypotheses here. But, as I have said before, the EU is no more "my" hypothesis than the solar nebula accretion hypothesis is yours.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You mean neither of you originated the theories, right? That's true. But it's fair to describe it as your position, and the accretion model as his. I don't think it's worth getting picky on the semantics there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Either the olivine was manufactured in the comet or it wasn't; I don't think it's unreasonable to try to pursue one of those two avenues. In fact there's a third possibility: the olivine might be an unexpected contamination and actually have nothing to do with the comet.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Of course, a fourth possibility would be that the olivine, <i>etc.</i> was manufactured at the surface of the comet at the time that it was electrically etched off.<br /><br />"Fred Whipple, in his book The Mystery of Comets, writes, <b>'the inner coma of a comet is a chemical factory! This leaves us confused as to whether the materials we detect come unchanged directly from the nucleus or were manufactured near the surface.</b> Fortunately, the tools for analysing this horrendously complicated problem have become available in recent decades.' Supercomputers are used to track more than a hundred species of atoms and molecules and a thousand and more possible reactions among them. The spectroscopic observations of the comet's coma are then used to estimate what ices and minerals are coming from the comet nucleus. Whipple continues, 'From our vantage point on Earth, which is so distant from comets, we can observe only the end products of the chemical factory after they have escaped hundreds or thousands of kilometres into space, where the gas is so rare that collisions no longer count. Thus the complicated gas-phase chemistry disguises the composition of the original ices in a comet.' <b>But if this concept is wrong then the data from Deep Impact [and Wild 2] is being misinterpreted and misrepresented to the public.</b> [Emphasis added.]"<br /><br />Indeed. More here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Lest we forget, the concept of the "dirty Iceball" model for Comets was, in fact, Whipple's. He also stated that the tails of Comets contained particles that originated in frozen reservoirs in comet nuclei. And that was confirmed by the close-up photos of Halley's by the ESA <i>Giotto</i> craft in 1986.<br /><br />Whipple, in the book you mention, stated the following:<br /><br /><i>"What is the chance that Jupiter could catch them [comets falling from outside the solar system] by its gravity and tame them into short-period, prograde orbits? He [H. A. Newton] found that the chance is very small. Only about one in a million would have its period reduced to less than Jupiter’s period of 11.86 years." Ibid., p. 75</i><br /><br />He was speaking there of Comets of extrasolar nature being captured by Jupiter's influence, and being coverted into short-period Comets. Whipple disagreed with this, and was a strong proponent of the origin of Cometary material being derived from the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

Mr. Whipple needs to stay with squeezing the Charmin. <br /><br />

 

[maxtheknife]

<i><b>LMAO, ROFL!!!</b></i> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>He also stated that the tails of Comets contained particles that originated in frozen reservoirs in comet nuclei.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Really? I thought that he said, "This leaves us confused as to whether the materials we detect come unchanged directly from the nucleus or were manufactured near the surface."<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>And that was confirmed by the close-up photos of Halley's by the ESA Giotto craft in 1986.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well, Giotto confirmed something, alright. I guess it depends on how you look at it that determines what one sees a being "confirmed" by the Giotto mission.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Whipple...was a strong proponent of the origin of Cometary material being derived from the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I, too, would sooner go for that than that they originate outside of our system. As you point out, there is plenty of cometary raw material in our own neighborhood that we don't really need to hypothesize about them coming from another system. Of course, we differ in that we each ascribe very different attributes to the comet-making process... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

i thought you guys would like that.

 

[tdamskov]

Sirius, I have not previously engaged in debate with you, but the impoliteness of your reply speaks of someone who is not here for constructive debate. If you have nothing to contribute on the ideas I posted, you're welcome to ignore them.<br /><br />I wouldn't mind commenting on your ideas of the olivine deposits being the result of electric discharges, but first I would like to see the same courtesy applied to my arguments and within the framework of assumptions in which they have been posted.<br /><br />Now, what I was looking for was some input on olivine originating from the supernova which, established science assumes, took part in the creation of the solar system.

 

[maxtheknife]

Don't mind Sirius, tdamskov... There's a lot of social stuff goin' on around here.<br /><br />

 

[robnissen]

"What is the chance that Jupiter could catch them [comets falling from outside the solar system] by its gravity and tame them into short-period, prograde orbits? He [H. A. Newton] found that the chance is very small. Only about one in a million would have its period reduced to less than Jupiter’s period of 11.86 years." <br /><br />I am a little perplexed by that statement, wouldn't it be more likely that a passing extrasolar comet would be captured by the sun's gravity, not Jupiter's? <br />

 

[tdamskov]

Sorry Maxtheknife, but I don't see how that thread contains anything relevant to my questions. Can we stick to the topic of this thread?

 

[siriusmre]

You're right, tdamskov, and I apologize. I retract the rude remarks I made. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>