Ice on Comet Tempel 1

yevaud · Feb 16, 2006

Let me see if I get this right. Even the Deep Impact Spectrographic team at UMD sees heavy concentrations of H2O - but none of it matters, because *you* think otherwise. And, no, EU is neither "scientific" nor correct. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Feb 16, 2006

The fact that the Deep Impact team found water on the surface, but only in a few scattered places, all but eliminates the possibility that there is a lot of undetectable surface ice "just hiding in the surface darkness," explained Sunshine ok, what is that, then? an ocean of water? These results show that there is ice on the surface, but not very much and definitely not enough to account for the water we see in the out-gassed material that is in the coma and that? this is a lot of water? "These new findings are significant because they show that our technique is effective in finding ice when it is on the surface and that we can therefore firmly conclude that most of the water vapor that escapes from comets is contained in ice particles found below the surface," and this? they blew a hole in the comet, was dry as a bone, and they assume the water has got to be there anyway, regardless of prior findings that a coma is mostly dust and not volatile material? let's not make this a back and forth bickering thread about EU and Standard Theory --both of which contain absolute fantasy elements. c'mon, Yevaud. i haven't even had lunch yet <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

jatslo · Feb 16, 2006

Yevaud said, "... And, no, EU is neither "scientific" nor correct...." <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Is anything scientific or correct when your in town? Seems to me that there is plenty science about electrodynamics and quantum physics *chromodynamics*, if that is the right word. (Memory serve me now). Hardy, HAR, HAR ARGGGGG!!!!!

yevaud · Feb 16, 2006

You don't even have that right. Pitiful. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

CalliArcale · Feb 16, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />and this? they blew a hole in the comet, was dry as a bone, and they assume the water has got to be there anyway, regardless of prior findings that a coma is mostly dust and not volatile material?<hr /></blockquote> Methinks you are making far too much of the Deep Impact results. You're describing it as if they sampled a very large percentage of the comet's nucleus. They didn't. It wasn't anywhere near that energetic an event. I don't think the EU crowd can really hand-wave away all the water in cometary comas. You have to explain where that water is coming from if you want your model to be accepted over the "dirty snowball" model. The water comes from *somewhere*. It has to. Deep Impact showed it probably did not come from the very surface of the comet's nucleus. Therefore it came from somewhere else. Why not deeper inside the comet? Those few comets whose density has been measured (i.e. the ones visited by spacecraft) have a density consistent with large quantities of water ice. And large amounts of water ice, including water ice coated with lots of organic chemicals, is known to exist in outer solar system minor planets. It does not seem unreasonable to guess that there's probably a lot of ice deeper down. What I find interesting (and what seems to be going overlooked in the rush of "hey, these scientists weren't flawless in their predictions, therefore the Electric Universe must be true!" claims) is that this suggests more differentiation in comets than was hitherto believed likely. Indeed, many asteroids are starting to show signs of differentiation as well, and that wasn't expected either. I don't want to draw this thread off-topic onto asteroids, but it's interesting. So. The water in the comas must come from somewhere. You find it absurd that it could come from the comet itself. Where do you propose it comes from? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Feb 16, 2006

So. The water in the comas must come from somewhere. You find it absurd that it could come from the comet itself. Where do you propose it comes from? Calli, comets are composed of both volatile material as well as non-volatile. of course the water comes from the comet! i've never said it didn't! but likewise, the comet is defined mostly by it's dust content of non-volatility and not the water. thus far as physically observed, comets are not gushing with water! the volatile vapor of the tails does have perhaps mostly water, yes, but is not what most of the body is composed of. and this tail is vaporous, tenuous, very thin and delicate. it is not an eruptive geyser, nor is the near interior of the comet "frosty the snowman" as has been the presumed "classic" idea for the past 50 years -- lo and behold --it ain't true! you want to compare it to Enceladus --which has 200% confirmed physical water plumes spewing forth from it's interior, as this is probably mostly an icy moon through and through. Comet Halley or Tempel 1 are NOT like Enceladus --they are not similar bodies or comparable to the icy snowball that is Enceladus. if anything, it is Enceladus that is the diry snowball, replete with the motherlode eureka moment of water fountains. this is not what is physically demonstated or seen in comets. this is not hard to understand! and nobody is claiming the EU theory is suddenly "true" just because they failed to find geysers on Tempel 1. good lord. they are saying that there are other reasons for what is being observed, and electrical phenomena may be part of that. or it may not be, but regardless, it is not a snowball.

CalliArcale · Feb 16, 2006

I don't think scientists have been describing comets as a "motherlode of water fountains" for many years. It's not consistent with what is observed. It's been known for a long time that they're not that dramatic. Enceladus is quite a different story from comets. It is geologically active, not just sloughing off material due to solar heating. Observe that comets tend to have quite old surfaces, while Enceladus is very young -- some large-scale features on Enceladus may actually post-date the Voyager encounters. This isn't indicative of what they're made of, neccesarily. That is to say, Enceladus isn't watery because it has geysers. There are icy bodies which don't show any activity at all, and which have extremely ancient surfaces. Consider Iapetus, for instance. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />they are saying that there are other reasons for what is being observed<hr /></blockquote> To be perfectly frank, I don't think they're even clear on what's being observed. And I haven't heard an alternate explanation for what's happening yet. Just lots of rather smug remarks about how this somehow shows that scientists haven't a clue. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Feb 16, 2006

i don't quite agree with your thinking. but i will concede that the jury is out. i went to an extreme with Enceladus as an example of a "snowball" or rather an iceball. and it is bloodletting water as it is heated --just as a comet was expected to be doing as it's coma became subject to the intensities of the solar plasma. they were banking on the comet's tail to be this plume of water, frothing off a snowy world of aged slush and slurry ice ---when in reality is (so far) mainly dust particles carrying predominately microscopic water crystals, or at least a huge concentration of hydroxyne (OH) allegedly photodissociated from H20. regardless, Tempel 1 is not an icy moon or even anything resembling such an object. it is physically evidently very much a dirt ball composed of cigarette smoke/powder fine dust with a high concentration of equally as fine ice crystals --not huge ice bergs of standing pack ice material as of yet --very primoridal material from the ancient solar nebula. the celestial equivalent of a freeze-dried dust mop.

CalliArcale · Feb 17, 2006

The main reason I said Enceladus was a different story is because there's no good reason (at least no good reason that anybody's figure out yet <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> ) for it to be "bloodletting water". (I like that phrase; very evocative.) By all accounts, it shouldn't be so hot. It doesn't have the excuse that comets have. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> But I'm digressing. I just like Enceladus. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I'll shut up and let you guys get back to comets now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

siriusmre · Feb 17, 2006

Actually, Enceladus may be more like a comet than we think. I would contend that Enceladus is "bloodletting water" as a result of Enceladus being relatively young, having only recently been ejected from Saturn, and so not being in electrical equilibrium with Saturn. Because of this electrical disequilibrium, there is a great deal of electrical arcing on the surface of the icy moon. The "geysers" on Enceladus are not "ice volcanoes" at all--or any other kind of volcano, for that matter--they are what plasma physicists call cathode jets. These cathode jets, where electrical arcs impinge upon the surface, not only erode the surface of the moon (EDM), but also heat it, accounting for the hot spot at its southern polar region. The first sentence in the following JPL article about the infrared analysis of Enceladus says it all: "This image shows the surprise that startled Cassini scientists on the composite infrared spectrometer team when they got their first look at the infrared (heat) radiation from the south pole of Saturn's moon Enceladus." Enceladus Temperature Map <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Feb 17, 2006

i hear what you say about Enceladus. i know the conditions are different for that world than for comets, probably, but it is the best example we have yet of literally an icy world, a true to character iceball, spewing it's guts out in front of us. and comets are evidently not in any way like that. or are they? and i am sure the reason for Enceladus' internal heat is probably very simple but elusively shattering of all assumptions we have regarding celestial mechanics. back to comets, i am wondering if these objects have any semblance of a magneto/ionosphere, with a bow shock that creates an envelope against the stellar plasma, as planets do. were this proven to be true, the cometary tails would be the analogues of planetary aurorae, as the essential processes by which these phenomena arise on planets would be nearly the same for the comets. perhaps the jets of particulate matter issuing forth from cometary nuclei do so along ever shifting magnetic field lines, as perhaps is the case on Enceladus as it's hot spot is presently centered at nearly dead-on with it's south pole. in this way, if this hypothesis could be tested against comparative data, comets and Enceladus would not be so dissimilar after all <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> it would maybe point the way to an inner heat source (however miniscule) on comets --highly unlikey and fetching under current philosophy-- but a question nonetheless.

yevaud · Feb 17, 2006

It's been assumed that the internal heat generated within Enceladus are due to tidal forces, flexing and warping Enceladus (and many others). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Feb 17, 2006

i was pretty much thinking the same thing as i was typing out my post, and, as it posted, i saw your post had appeared suddenly with nearly the same idea <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

bonzelite · Feb 17, 2006

t's been assumed that the internal heat generated within Enceladus are due to tidal forces, flexing and warping Enceladus (and many others). yes, that goes without saying, but is alone not enough to account for the highly specific phenomena observed on that world. even under a tidal force only scenario, Enceladus "baffles scientists and should not be happening," to use the trite cliche' of the ages.

siriusmre · Feb 17, 2006

You know what happens when one assumes... Has anyone ever actually measured such tidal forces on Enceladus? Is there any data on the exact extent to which Enceladus is tidally "flexed and warped" by Saturn's gravity? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Feb 17, 2006

"Assume..." <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I don't know, off the top of my head, but will try to find out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

siriusmre · Feb 17, 2006

HA! Now...Got any answers to my real questions? Anyone? Bueller? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Feb 17, 2006

Not an analysis of the amount of Tidal Stressing experienced by Enceladus, but interesting nonetheless, peripherally related. http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA07721 Well, and wasn't that interesting. On the one hand, it can't be radioactives, as the small mass of Enceladus would have bled away all heat from it a long time ago. It would be, apparently, insufficient as well. Next, there is some tidal flexing as Enceladus is in a 1:2 resonant orbit with Dione - which may provide some of the required heating mechanism. But certainly not all. Enceladus is far outside the Roche limit for Saturn, so tidal forces are present, but not huge. The current line on this is that perhaps the better part of Enceladus is made up of some low melting-point material, rather than H2O. Although what material, at this point, no one can say. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

siriusmre · Feb 17, 2006

Planets are born in a manner similar to cellular mitosis. Because stars are connected to a galactic curcuit via Birkeland currents, they are subject to fluctuations in those currents--asking where those come from is a question akin to asking what caused the "Big Bang." When the stress on a celestial body becomes too much for the body to handle, it will often split in order to create more surface area across which to distribute the incoming charge. That is why so many binary star systems that we have recorded have gas-giant companions orbiting so closely. If we could send a probe between two such bodies, we would certainly encounter an electric field, or tube of plasma--in dark discharge mode--that connects them. You are correct, the energies required are enormous. Fortunately, electricity can handle it. This type of behavior is fully within its wheelhouse. Those energies are enough to have destroyed Enceladus, but they are ultimately energies that are characteristically able to organize matter as well. The plasma z-pinch is a well-known phenomenon. There are a number of "mainstream" assertions that are equally as unsubstantiated as you claim EU ideas to be--if not more! And rather than provide a scientific refutation of my planetary birth model, you resort to the thing that you accuse people like me of doing against the fictions of the "mainstream model." By simply stating that you do not believe it or that its tenets are unsubstantiated does not make the EU interpretation untrue. These types of responses always evoke the same reaction from me: Methinks he doth protest too much. It all seems to me like a form of stopping your ears with your fingers and repeating, "La-la-la-la-la-la-la! I can't hear you!" Clearly, your knowledge of plasma physics is akin to that of most people here: Non-existent. These processes have been studied in plasma labs for about a century. You cannot impugn the science of it. Do not be so small as to villi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Feb 17, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />t's been assumed that the internal heat generated within Enceladus are due to tidal forces, flexing and warping Enceladus (and many others). yes, that goes without saying, but is alone not enough to account for the highly specific phenomena observed on that world. even under a tidal force only scenario, Enceladus "baffles scientists and should not be happening," to use the trite cliche' of the ages.<hr /></blockquote> Scientists aren't exactly baffled by it. They just don't know precisely what's going on inside Enceladus. They've got a lot of ideas, but given how far away Enceladus is, it's not easy to test them. So the process is slow. Don't confuse that for bafflement or a failing of conventional science. Conventional science takes time -- sometimes quite a lot of time. It is an extremely deliberate process. This is it's greatest strength, but unfortunately it means it's not very fast. There are many ideas for Enceladus. It is even possible that more than one is correct. But it's really premature to rule most of them out, or even say that any of the scenarios is inadequate by itself. There is not enough data to say that. When one scientist argues that it must be tidal, or another argues that it must not be, they are reaching their difference of opinion largely because they have different opinions about the value of certain assumptions. (When you don't have enough data, the only way to move forward is to make certain assumptions and then play around under those assumptions. If the results don't look right, it's probably a good sign the assumptions were wrong. The trick, of course, is to remember what's an assumption and what's a fact. When working with the assumptions, there is the everpresent danger of forgetting that distinction. Human arrogance, I suppose, but the best scientists are the ones who are best at resisting that <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

siriusmre · Feb 17, 2006

While this paper discusses the Jovian moon Io, its concepts apply equally well to Enceladus, and comets. Enjoy! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

pocket_rocket · Feb 17, 2006

If Enceladus were recently ejected from Saturn, that would point more to it being geologically active as mentioned in Callies post. Plasma theory wouldn't be necessary or even likely in that senario.

bonzelite · Feb 17, 2006

are you meaning ejected from a closer orbital distance? as in the case of Io at Jupiter, in it's closer orbit? Io is tortured by Jupiter's radiation which is an interactive plasma. Io orbits within a plasma torus. it's surface is modified by this interaction as well as by tidal forces.

silylene old · Feb 17, 2006

Calli, good summary. In another thread which I haven't bothered to look up (perhaps it was in unmannedspaceflight.com), I posted another possibility to explain the Enceladus thermal anomoly which I think to be a realistic possibility: Perhaps Enceladus has an off-center nucleus of higher density. This would cause much greater tidal stress than a spherically symmetrical density distibution within the moon. I am unaware if anyone has modeled the consequence of an off-center nucleus, but I am quite certain that if this were the case, this would significantly amplify heating caused by tidal stress and orbital eccentricty. If my hypothesis were correct, this would leave another enigma: how did Enceladus come to have an off-center nucleus? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

yevaud · Feb 17, 2006

That might well indicate a past collision with another body. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Ice on Comet Tempel 1

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

yevaud

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

yevaud

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

yevaud

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

pocket_rocket

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

silylene old

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page