"Weird Crystals" Found in Comet Wild 2 Sample

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If metallic hydrogen exists...it may not transmute into a crystal because it may not have the correct properties to do so.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I don't think it can. It takes enormous pressure to get it into anything resembling a solid state; I don't think it's capable of crystalizing. Certainly not as something that could be captured by Stardust; it would've boiled away long before reaching the collection grid, to say nothing about surviving the journey home. <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>

 

[yevaud]

That is correct, and it's the problem with Jatslo's assertation. Metallic Hydrogen is only possible when formed - and remains - under great pressure. From the included link, below: <i>it will become metallic at a pressure of 450 GPa – over four million times atmospheric pressure.</i><br /><br />http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/6/4/6/1 <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>

 

[jatslo]

Yes, that is why I said exotic several times, helium II will not turn solid , in which you posted helium. He and He II behave differently. I expect an exotic cyrstal discovery today. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[jatslo]

I have faith in Mother Nature's ability to create substance even though humanity cannot, so the problem involves humanities inability to manufacture something that might exist because Mother Nature says so. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[jatslo]

I have deleted that post without even reading it to save time; how is that?<br /><br />With respect to meta stability, I think I threw a planet mass in the mix somewhere, as if the comet (Wild II) is a piece of a planet. A place where hydrogen/helium resided under pressure for eons, only to fragment for some unknown reason. I expect that meta stable metallic hydrogen is an exotic carbon similar to diamond, and I expect to find evidence for this within comets, asteroids, and what not...<br /><br />Meta stable metallic hydrogen is a very important piece to our evolution, in fact, an entire thread could be devoted to it, in my opinion.

 

[siriusmre]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Well, I have to say, occaisonally I have seen some weird and unexpected crystals at work, formed as particulate residues in contaminated plasma etch chambers. These are very tiny, and can be imaged in a SEM. Perhaps I will post a picture next time I come across one (I didn't save any on my harddrive). Sometimes these crystals from the etch chambers look rather like the pictures posted here. No one has ever researched these particles in detail to my knowledge, and I couldn't find anything on the net. <br /><br />The extreme conditions in a plasma etch chamber and the extreme conditions in space do have some aspects in common.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Wow. <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /><br /><br />I don't know how I missed this post earlier, but now that I read it, my only reaction is, "Wow."<br /><br />This is exactly what I've been berated and derided many times here for suggesting: There is a kind of electric discharge machining (or plasma etching, if you like) going on on the surface of celestial bodies like comets (such as Wild 2 and Tempel 1) and on moons (such as Enceladus and Io).<br /><br />Note the morphological similarities between the face of Wild 2 and a microscopic view of an electical discharge machined (plasma etched) surface in the pic below.<br /><br />(BTW, where was the outrage against silylene for suggesting such a subversive and blasphemous idea? Conditions in space like those in a plasma etch chamber?! Where were the belittling comments that he was spouting pseudo-scientific nonsense? Where was the threat to move this thread to the Phenomena forum, where such wild speculation belongs?...Hm... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />(BTW, where was the outrage against silylene for suggesting such a subversive and blasphemous idea? Conditions in space like those in a plasma etch chamber?! Where were the belittling comments that he was spouting pseudo-scientific nonsense? Where was the threat to move this thread to the Phenomena forum, where such wild speculation belongs?...Hm... ) <br /></font><br /><br />exactly. remember this forum is primarlily a political debate forum. silylene is highly regarded and maintains an established position of esteem. he can post content that you post, as you are a stigmatized whacko, and he will get away with it and receive accolades for it. but not you. you will be marginalized and berated. <br /><br />welcome to life.

 

[CalliArcale]

It is not content which causes some threads to be moved to Phenomena. Nor is it the people posting the content, as you allege. It is whether or not the participants are willing to discuss them fairly and scientifically.<br /><br />Now, I must remind you of TheShadow's warning a few posts back. This is not the place for discussing debating tactics or for unfounded accusations of intellectual dishonesty. This will be the last reminder in this thread. Further violation will result in this thread being locked. <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>

 

[yevaud]

Well...<br /><br /><i>Silylene: Well, I have to say, <font color="orange">occaisonally</font>I have seen some weird and unexpected crystals at work, formed as particulate residues in contaminated plasma etch chambers.</i><br /><br /><i>The extreme conditions in a plasma etch chamber and the extreme conditions in space do have <font color="orange">some aspects</font>in common.</i><br /><br />As opposed to:<br /><br /><i>SirumsMeE: There <font color="orange">is</font>a kind of electric discharge machining (or plasma etching, if you like) going on on the surface of celestial bodies like comets (such as Wild 2 and Tempel 1) and on moons (such as Enceladus and Io).<br /><br />Note the morphological <font color="orange">similarities</font>between the face of Wild 2 and a microscopic view of an electical discharge machined (plasma etched) surface in the pic below.</i><br /><br />Silylene states there are similarities once in a while between the two, and that's all he states. He points out that the two are extreme environments.<br /><br />On the other hand, you state an "is." <br /><br />He did not point that out except as information, and that's all. You take a <i>belief</i> and turn it into a "proven" theory. There's a vast gap between the two.<br /><br /><i>That's</i> the difference. <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]

<font color="yellow"><br />Silylene states there are similarities once in a while between the two, and that's all he states. He points out that the two are extreme environments. </font><br /><br />right. with proper semantics and egg-shell walking, you can state something without fully owning it. this way, peers will pass you ahead with a green light and a pat on the back. bolder assertions not accepted by the peer group will be met with instant ridicule. yet sily draws a strong parallel between plasma chamber machining and the features on the coma. and he is not ridiculed for implying the processes may be happening on the comet, too? what other conclusion should you draw, then from his post? this is the who-posts-depends-on-credibility phenomena. <br /><br />the pockmarking on the coma looks nothing in any way like "impacts." <br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />well, regarding black programs, those are intelligence orgs or military and have nothing to do wtih NASA.</font><br /><br />steve, buddy, you admit outright there are black projects in intelligence and military orgs. you know that is <b>fact</b>. and you admit to it. outright. <br /><br />yet you hold shy from including NASA?! why is NASA so special and innocent as to be immune and left out of such programs when it is literally an entity of the military? why protect NASA? are you aware that NASA is literally an appendage of the military services, subject to scrutiny by the CIA and NSA? as is any military industrial complex entity? you think McDonnel Douglas, Boeing, General Dynamics, Honeywell, all which service NASA, are NOT subject to black funding? <br /><br />c'mon steve <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

And that's where you are wrong. Silylene stated that there are similarities in appearance between these two things, and that is <i>all</i> he has stated. He doesn't make claims about it, it's an effect he's seen before, although on rare occasion, and he doesn't jump from having seen this to "then it must be <insert Science shattering revelation here>."<br /><br />That is not What SiriusMrE is saying. He is saying outright that all Cometary bodies are thus "plasma etched," with no evidence, no proof, no work. Worse, he now links these two very disparate thing together by taking what Silylene has posted out of contrext. <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]

<font color="yellow"><br />The rockiness of the inner planets versus the gas giants, like Jupiter as well as the bodies out into the Kuiper is NOT "a trend". It's a fact.</font><br /><br />no it isn't. <br /><br />in cases, gas planets are first in order, closest to the primary. you ignoring that?

 

[yevaud]

<i>in cases, gas planets are first in order, closest to the primary.</i><br /><br />Irrelevant. We are not living in said places, we are here, in our own Solar System, where what was stated is the case. <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]

hey, SiriusMrE, rethink your semantics. you can say the same thing by changing your words around. it comes down to presentation. that is it. <br /><br />Silylene says the same thing as Sirius, but does not take the argument into absolutes. this way, he can get away with saying anything, yet presenting compelling evidence that IMPLIES it to be true, and, possibly, absolute. <br /><br />you see that MrSirius? stop tooting your "must be" EU horn.

 

[jatslo]

Crystals would support the etching hypothesis; is this a testable hypothesis, or one that is in theoretical format; preferably *.pdf ...? Seems testable to me ... I read something about a mad hatter who etched diamonds onto a plane for quantum computing. I can't remember if it was a storage device, or something else. Silica is etched easily, but silica crystals are not weird, they are expected. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I, on the other hand, hope for an exotic surprise. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Irrelevant. We are not living in said places, we are here, in our own Solar System, where what was stated is the case.</font><br /><br />LOL!!!! i state outright facts and they are "irrelevant"!!! <br /><br />go home, Yevaud. take a shower.

 

[yevaud]

<i>hey, SiriusMrE, rethink your semantics. you can say the same thing by changing your words around. it comes down to presentation. that is it.</i><br /><br />They are not saying the same thing at all.<br /><br /><i>Silylene says the same thing as Sirius</i><br /><br />Again, no he is not.<br /><br /><i>but does not take the argument into absolutes.</i><br /><br />Damned if that isn't precisely the case. Silylene is not speaking absolute certitudes, merely noting something odd. Sirius (and you here) <i>are</i> stating certitudes.<br /><br /><i>this way, he can get away with saying anything, yet presenting compelling evidence that IMPLIES it to be true, and, possibly, absolute.</i><br /><br />I fail where you see that in Silylene's case. <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>

 

[yevaud]

<font color="yellow">Irrelevant. We are not living in said places, we are here, in our own Solar System, where what was stated is the case.</font><br /><br /><font color="orange">LOL!!!! i state outright facts and they are "irrelevant"!!!</font><br /><br />If you're currently located in the 16 Cygni B system, then you would be correct about the Gas Giants. You are not though, are you?<br /> <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>

 

[telfrow]

Somehow, it feels as if this is off topic in this thread now <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />, but the Stardust news conference announcing the premilinary findings begins in fifteen minutes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Crystals would support the etching hypothesis; is this a testable hypothesis, or one that is in theoretical format; preferably *.pdf ...?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm not exactly clear what the "etching hypothesis" is. I know it's been talked about here; maybe it's my foggy brain (been stripping wallpaper and painting for the last three days; between the paint fumes, stiff muscles, and waking up in the middle of a dream this morning, I'm really out of it) but I'm not clear on the specifics.<br /><br />Crystals, in and of themselves, don't have to be etched by anything to exist. So no, their mere existence doesn't tell us much. If they've been etched in some way, that would be interesting. What would it prove? I don't think that's something that can be answered ahead of time. We can guess, of course. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

 

[bonzelite]

so what is your angle? <br /><br />you are denying the relevancy of extrasolar system structures and how they may illustrate how solar systems are? <br /><br />so we should only look to our own solar system for insight? /* deleted */

 

[jatslo]

Crystals have lots to say about their environment. Hurry NASA, the suspense is killing me.

 

[yevaud]

We are not presently located in one of those Extrasolar Systems. What you stated is not what we observe here in the Sol System. <br /><br />You are then linking the fact that we have imaged Gas Giants near their primary in Extrasolar Systems to this discussion. And it proves...what? <br /><br />It is not germaine to this discussion. I can only assume that you are stating that as we have imaged said Jovian (plus) mass bodies, therefore it trumps the known facts of our own Sol system, and hence becomes somehow some sort of support for your claims. It does not.<br /><br />It is irrelevant. <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

No, his point is that it doesn't matter what other solar systems are like because we're talking about comets in our own solar system. What's significant, then, is what our own solar system is like. Other solar systems are useful for comparison, of course, but for determining what composition is likely, we need to look to where the comets likely originated.<br /><br />Now, Yevaud is arguing that they have always been part of our solar system. Therefore, it's not relevant what other solar systems are like, except to help learn how solar systems evolve and things like that. You're arguing that a significant percentage of the comets were captured, so for you it does matter, because it would constrain which solar systems they could've come from. However, I have to agree with Yevaud; it seems very unlikely that a significant percentage of comets were captured bodies. Interactions between solar systems don't seem to happen often enough to account for them all. (That's also a major counterargument for the popular notion that comets originate in the Oort cloud and are occasionally dislodged by passing extrasolar bodies.) <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>