Preliminary data on Stardust comet debris.

michaelmozina · May 15, 2006

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19837 It seems that a comet tends to be less of a "dirty snowball" and instead of composed of "high temperature" materials not unlike a common meteorite. <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>

CalliArcale · May 15, 2006

Sounds pretty much consistent with the early reports that were trickling out a while back. It's exciting to hear about, though. So they're finding more of the exotic materials? I would caution against making too many assumptions based on what Stardust found, for a variety of reasons: 1) Comets may be variable; Wild 2 may not be typical. I would expect this, frankly. I mean, asteroids vary, so why not comets? 2) The material in the tail may not be reflective of the composition of the nucleus. I mean, it has to come from the nucleus, but what if comets are differentiated, or if other factors can skew which particular components end up in the tail? 3) Age may be a factor. A comet is said to be a comet if it is in an orbit that brings it near enough to the Sun to produce a tail. But they cannot always have been in such orbits, or they would be gone by now. So they are relative newcomers to their orbit. It is possible that the material being sloughed off varies as the comet ages. This may or may not be connected to point number 2 above. That said, this stuff is incredibly valuable. It's the first direct samples of a comet to be obtained in a way where their provenance is absolutely without a doubt, and where there is virtually no chance of contamination. It's going to take a very long time to exhaust the science that can be obtained from these tiny specimens. <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>

michaelmozina · May 15, 2006

I just think it is fantastic that they were able to salvage some of the samples. <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>

CalliArcale · May 15, 2006

You may be confusing this with Genesis. Genesis was the probe that crash-landed and broke open upon impact. (Here, a lot of us were joking that it was experimenting with the "lithobraking" technique.) Stardust actually made a flawless reentry. The intact capsule was taken to a specially-prepared clean room. It was then unsealed and they began photographing the aerogel collection grid to search for debris streaks -- of which there were many. The aerogel performed exceptionally well, and they were very happy about that. It's a very cool mission. <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>

robnissen · May 15, 2006

"One of the most exciting outcomes of the workshop was preliminary data suggesting that the comet is a mix of both stardust grains from other stars as well as materials formed in the solar system. As expected, there appears to be true stardust in Stardust." That is soooo unbelieveably cool. To get samples from both in and outside the solar system is amazing. I didn't think I would be alive for the first sample return mission from OTHER STARS!!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

dmjspace · May 17, 2006

The recent Stardust report from NASA gives tantalizing hints about data with which we may compare competing models of comet formation. As many posters know, I advocate the "exploded planet hypothesis" (EPH), which has so far proven to be far more predictive than the accepted "dirty snowball" (DS) model. The latest report from the Stardust team appears to continue the string of surprises bombarding the DS model, while providing support for the EPH. The EPH, of course, suggests that comets are similar to asteroids in composition, density and origin. They are both essentially rocky bodies with a great deal of dust, with some "interstitial" ice. They are both remnants of a larger, planet-sized parent body, which means they should exhibit characteristics of planets, including a wide variety of silicate materials, differentiated elemental compositions and layered, evolved surfaces with deep dust regoliths. The DS model, on the other hand, suggests comets are giant, extremely porous balls of ice with some dirt mixed in. The recent report from NASA appears to lend strong support to the EPH, as have prior cometary reports . For instance, the report says: There was a general consensus that many of comet particles are built like loose dirt-clods composed both of "large strong rocks" as well as very fine powdery materials. "Large strong rocks"? What DS model expects rocks, let alone large, strong ones? None that I know of. We were told by NASA's Deep Impact mission, in fact, that comets are "gravity dominated" rather than "strength dominated." But a strength dominated body (as predicted by the EPH) definitely requires "large strong rocks" as its composition. It will be interesting to see exactly what the team mean

CalliArcale · May 17, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"Large strong rocks"? What DS model expects rocks, let a long large, strong ones? None that I know of.<hr /></blockquote> Um, the one that suggests they are loosely conglomerated accretions of primordial dust and ice, like the one that inspired the Stardust mission in the first place? <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>

dmjspace · May 17, 2006

CalliArcale said: Um, the one that suggests they are loosely conglomerated accretions of primordial dust and ice, like the one that inspired the Stardust mission in the first place? What an odd phrase, "large strong rocks." Why didn't they just say "big primordial dust particles chock full o' ice" or something? As always, the devil is in the details. So far, the DS didn't expect materials that formed in superheated conditions. It expected far more ice. It didn't expect a wide range of minerals. So far there appears to be nothing primordial about these samples. They are highly "processed."

silylene old · May 17, 2006

Sigh, here we go again with the "EPH". Well, if you can advocate EPH, I can then advocate the "PEPH" (Partially Exploded Planet Hypothesis). As you know, partial planetary explosions are the origin of craters observed on planetary bodies and moons. When planetary explosions are large enough, the entire planet disintegrates. Smaller explosions produce craters of various size. This happens all the time! Witness the plethora of craters seen on the moon. Thousands of examples of PEPH!. In fact, the tiny microcraters seen in the dunes of Mars are from MEPH (Micro Exploded Planetary Hypothesis). Ok enough. **sarcasm off** Please stop with the EPH caca. Enough disruption of threads. I will similarly stop with PEPH. thank you. <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>

derekmcd · May 17, 2006

Well, ya know... A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away there was this death star. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

michaelmozina · May 18, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You may be confusing this with Genesis. <hr /></blockquote> Gah! How right you are. Ooops. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>

CalliArcale · May 18, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />What an odd phrase, "large strong rocks." Why didn't they just say "big primordial dust particles chock full o' ice" or something?<hr /></blockquote> Because it's a lot less clumsy than your proposed phrase, perhaps? I do not understand your objection to the terminology. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />As always, the devil is in the details. So far, the DS didn't expect materials that formed in superheated conditions. It expected far more ice. It didn't expect a wide range of minerals.<hr /></blockquote> Not the version of the model I've read about. Perhaps we are discussing different variations on the theme. Certainly you seem to be objecting to a far simpler model than the one proposed by Shoemaker when he coined the phrase "dirty snowball". A range of minerals is indeed expected. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />So far there appears to be nothing primordial about these samples. They are highly "processed."<hr /></blockquote> I would be interested to know what you mean by that, and why you don't consider them to be primordial. <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>

CalliArcale · May 18, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Upon losing their kinetic energy to the Aerogel, one would further assume that the ices would instantly evaporate and escape the Aerogel. I, a layman, would have predicted that a fair percentage of the tracks would indicate this signiture.<hr /></blockquote> That's very possible. I understand the aerogel is supposed to seal up behind the tracks as it resolidifies. (The particles actually melt it as they pass into it.) But I don't know how long that process takes; it wouldn't take long for an ice particle to sublimate under these circumstances, especially as the passage through the aerogel should've heated it somewhat. <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>

dmjspace · May 19, 2006

CalliArcale said: I do not understand your objection to the terminology. There should be nothing large or strong about the particles of comet debris. It's supposed to be icy, especially the coma. The EPH says the comet is overwhelmingly rocky. Reports of large, strong rocky material are more consistent with what the EPH predicts. Of course, the team doesn't explain what it means by this phrase, so we're only speculating at this point. In any case, it seems mighty strange wording to me, as it's difficult to see how any form of "stardust" could be considered large and strong. Certainly you seem to be objecting to a far simpler model than the one proposed by Shoemaker when he coined the phrase "dirty snowball". A range of minerals is indeed expected. I am objecting to the model that does not expect materials that formed in superheated conditions. I'm objecting to the model that does not anticipate minerals formed in the presence of water. Naturally, the DS model will be morphed into one that incorporates the new data. That cannot be accomplished, however, unless its fundamental assumptions are re-examined. As I've noted repeatedly, the DS model has and will continue to evolve into a model that looks very much like the EPH. I would be interested to know what you mean by that, and why you don't consider them to be primordial. Primordial means unaltered by heat or water, unaffected by chemical or elemental differentiation or exposure to any sort of weathering. The data from several comets so far show indications of all these effects.

CalliArcale · May 22, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I am objecting to the model that does not expect materials that formed in superheated conditions. I'm objecting to the model that does not anticipate minerals formed in the presence of water.<hr /></blockquote> Okay. That's fair. Thanks for confirming that you are not objecting to the standard model, because the standard model is fine with such materials. The standard model doesn't propose such material formed within the comet itself but predate its accretion. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Naturally, the DS model will be morphed into one that incorporates the new data.<hr /></blockquote> First off, why do you insist the DS model doesn't anticipate the possiblity of such materials? Secondly, why do you object to scientists using the scientific method? A mark of a good scientist is the willingness to alter theories to fit the facts. A mark of a bad scientist is the belief that this shows intellectual weakness. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Primordial means unaltered by heat or water, unaffected by chemical or elemental differentiation or exposure to any sort of weathering. <hr /></blockquote> No, primordial means *old*. For primordial material to survive, it must avoid heat, corrosion, weathering, etc. But it can have been created in heat. How it is created is not significant to whether or not it is primordial, although it is very significant to what the primordial material can tell us. <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>

dmjspace · May 22, 2006

CalliArcale said: Okay. That's fair. Thanks for confirming that you are not objecting to the standard model, because the standard model is fine with such materials. In no prior version of the DS model were such materials expected. Yes, now that such materials have been found, the model will be changed to fit the findings. A model that has to be fundamentally altered post-observation is a *weak* model because it means it is a poor predictor. The standard model doesn't propose such material formed within the comet itself but predate its accretion. See my response above. In every single article initially reporting the results in question, the observing team members expressed great surprise. These findings were totally unexpected. See, for example, this headline, which was typical for recent findings: Composition of Comet Poses Puzzle Or this one: Comet fragments yield surprise Or this one: Findings about comet surprise scientists Actually, just take your pick of the 1.45 million hits one gets by Googling "comet" and "surprise". The articles are chock full of superlatives such as "shocked," "amazed," "totally unanticipated," "mysterious," "baffled" and (my favorite) "thought to be impossible." These are clear indications of a flawed model. Sure, scientists are good at getting back to work and pretending nothing's wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that the model failed to predict on such a fundamental basis. why do you object to scientists using the scientific method? A mark of a good scientist is the willingnes

CalliArcale · May 22, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I'm not talking about good (or bad) scientists, I'm talking about good (or, in this case, bad) models. A good model makes accurate predictions. A bad model encounters frequent surprises and challenges to its fundamental assumptions.<hr /></blockquote> Model A fails to predict Event Z. Ergo, Model A should be completely discarded? I disagree that the Dirty Snowball is incompatible with the observations. You seem to think the Dirty Snowball believes that there is no primordial matter available from which to acrete a comet. Why do you believe this? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />A model is not "good" when it has to have new variables appended to save it. In fact, it's not the same model at all...it's a new one with more variables. This is bad. Bad, bad model. Ask Occam.<hr /></blockquote> Occam's Razor says nothing about such a situation. Occam's Razor is not about discarding the baby with the bathwater, as you wish to do. Occam's Razor says that if there are two options for explaining a particular observation, which cannot be distinguished by the available evidence, then the prudent course is to choose the simpler. That is not what you are proposing. You are proposing discarding an entire model because of a minor perceived weakness. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The point is that if you have two models and one predicts later observations accurately, and another doesn't, a good scientist favors the model that did NOT need to be altered in response to new data.<hr /></blockquote> But the Exploded Planet Hypothesis does not predict the data any better than the Dirty Snowball. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Original comet models expected "pristine" (i.e. undifferentiated) materials. This belief persisted until we actually started observing comets closely. Yes, yo</blockquote> <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>

enigma10 · May 25, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Primordial means unaltered by heat or water, unaffected by chemical or elemental differentiation or exposure to any sort of weathering.<hr /></blockquote> The chance of finding such material would be impossible within the tail of a comet, which by definition alone is creating the debri tail from such reactions from a nearby star. The chances become even less if one assumes the comet was created with an impact from another celestrial body somewhere out there, then tugged around the universe, passing through hot and cold gasses, celestrial winds, radiation, etc. By your definition, primordial wold not exist. Primordial would be material created close to the time line of the formation of the solar system/universe. The exact properties of which are still to be discovered. Enigma10 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan </div>

colesakick · May 27, 2006

“Some of these particles contain minerals the form only at extremely high temperatures - temperatures that could not have existed where the comets formed.” That being the case, and I trust they are correct in this analysis, it should be evident that the extreme heat in question could certainly be generated under CURRENT (as opposed to historical) conditions, as stated in the EU model. According to the Electric Universe model, the electrical relationship between the two bodies causes the sun to act like a plasma gun that is machining off surface material of the comet at extremely high temperatures. It states further that cometary tails glow, not due to glistening ice particles, but is simply the electrified plasma sheath of the comet glowing, the tail of which forms and trails behind as it interacts with the particles coming off the sun in the solar wind (an electrical current). Note that no ice or water was reported as being evident (or absent) in the aerogel (pretty significant considering they developed the gel specifically to preserve precisely that sort of matter). I find it disingenuous that the whole topic of ice and water has yet to be addressed head on in either of the Stardust reports so far published. Had they found any positive evidence in support of the ice/water (that they surely anticipated finding), they would be trumpeting the news far and wide. Evidently there must not be any evidence to support or suggest Startdust came home with the coveted proof of the theory that comets are made of ice and dirt. The next report from this team will finally address the conspicuous lack of any evidence of water or ice and a tiny little bit of original thinking in dealing with the OH radicals they THOUGHT was evidence of sublimated ice/water from the comet itself. The EU model states that the OH radical that form in the comet sheath is due to plasma arc welding-like conditions which then couples up easily with the copio <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

tdamskov · May 29, 2006

Perhaps arcing could be responsible for some tiny craters in certain instances (e.g. Mars). However, there is no observational edidence to support the needed amount of energy flowing freely amongst bodies in the solar system. If you think there is, kindly point everyone to that evidence. Did you ever try calculating the energies required to form a crater of several hundred meters diameter and tens of meters deep? They are similar to what is released when a nuclear bomb detonates. Even small rocks can easily contain the kinetic energy required, which is why they come as the most plausible explanation for the innummerable craters we see. Similarly you need to be very specific in explaning how neutrally charged debris from a crater can be accelerated by electricity into space... Since that hasn't been possible to do in labs. I'm not disregarding EU theory as a possible factor in the way comets work, but applying it wholesale to cratering processes in the solar system is like seeing every problem as a nail when you have a hammer.

nexium · May 29, 2006

Likely all the models are wrong, and we will invent new ones which are also wrong. Supernova have been blowing the surface rocks off close in planets for 13 billion years. If some of this ejecta has traveled at 1% of light speed in random directions for 13 billion years, it has traveled up to 130 million light years, which makes it almost uniformally distributed through out our galaxy. Pebbles and bolders reasonably attracted dust in the nebula from which our solar system and others were formed. Why would we expect comets to have zero bolders? Likely a few planets exploded and supplied a small percentage of the average comet's material. Neil

colesakick · May 29, 2006

The explanation comes down to scalability. Electricity can be scaled up to any order of magnitude, thus, if you can make a small crater in clay using an arc welder in a lab, you can make a large crater on a planet using the same principles. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040705olympus-mons.htm The question is, what acted with the planets and moons to cause such interactions? I recommend you read Thunderbolts of the Gods for a possible answer. In short, the book’s authors suspect that our system was once (at least once) in a plasma rich zone of our spinning galaxy. While in this diffusely electrified zone the electromagnetic fields that appear to connect solar bodies (Birkeland filaments) perturb the plasma into very well defined shapes. These shapes are seen both in plasma labs and carved into 10,000 year old rock art all over the northern hemisphere of our planet. Ancient mythology speaks of wars between the gods with fearsome noise and lightning fleeting across the sky wherein one solar body was said to spit apart. It’s quite an interesting read with really nice graphics that compare and contrast the rock art with actual lab plasma discharges. http://www.thunderbolts.info/book-dvd.htm For a good primer on EU and why go here http://www.electric-cosmos.org/ here http://www.plasmacosmology.net/electric.html and here http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php Take some time with it before you answer back. For photographic evidence of the main principles go here http://www.th <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

TheShadow · May 29, 2006

colesakick says: However, realistically there are little if any material remains in or around most craters to suggest they were formed by impacts of foreign bodies PLUS most craters are too small to imply that an impacting object would have disintegrated in said impact. That is false. That would mean that all the real scientists, with thousands of years experience between them, are ALL wrong. The fact is, the Earth is just as covered with craters as any of the other planets or moons. And many of those craters on Earth, which can be closely studied, have been studied in detail, with samples taken and analyzed. On the larger craters, debris and artifacts such as tektites have been found up to hundreds of miles away. It all fits standard theory quite well. Another thing, arc welding on a micro scale does not, and cannot, correlate to anything on the scale of most identifiable impact craters. I have been arc welding for nearly 45 years and I understand the effects very well. Claiming that laboratory arc tests in any way relate to impact craters is total and utter BS, plain and simple. Believe what you will, but be cautioned. Belief is no one’s friend. Belief without corroborating proof is an illusion that often blinds the victim to the evidence compiled by systematic and comprehensive (and boring) research and analysis. Why you are campaigning so vigorously for the EU hypothesis is a mystery to me. It isn’t merely that it is contrary to “mainstream science”, but rather that it is so utterly unsupported by the real physical tests we are able to do here on Earth. How many of the Earth craters have you personally investigated and analyzed? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

TheShadow · May 29, 2006

colesakick says: The explanation comes down to scalability. Electricity can be scaled up to any order of magnitude, thus, if you can make a small crater in clay using an arc welder in a lab, you can make a large crater on a planet using the same principles. So you claim. Prove it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

CalliArcale · May 30, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The explanation comes down to scalability. Electricity can be scaled up to any order of magnitude, thus, if you can make a small crater in clay using an arc welder in a lab, you can make a large crater on a planet using the same principles.<hr /></blockquote> I think we all understand the problem comes down to scalability. That's the rub. To scale the phenomenon up to something capable of producing a crater, you'd need a truly fantastic amount of electricity. Yet while meteoritic impacts have been observed, these gargantuan electrical discharges have not, and the repository of charge is curiously elusive. This does not mean EU theory cannot explain craters. It simply means EU theory has got a lot of work to do in this particular area before it can confidently expect to convince anybody that it's more than idle speculation. <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>

Preliminary data on Stardust comet debris.

michaelmozina

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

robnissen

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

silylene old

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

enigma10

Guest

colesakick

Guest

tdamskov

Guest

nexium

Guest

colesakick

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page