"Weird Crystals" Found in Comet Wild 2 Sample

yevaud · Mar 13, 2006

Exactly so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Mar 13, 2006

There is evidence for interaction on a 26-million year cycle, so I do not see why the origin is more likely in either regard. Besides probability requires primary sources, otherwise it is called non-probability. Have you heard that our system might be a binary system? Whole planets may have shifted from one star to the other, who knows.

telfrow · Mar 13, 2006

I'm taking notes as I watch, so forgive any misinformation: Samples were formed at extremely high temps; that is, minerals that formed under high temp conditions (red hot or white hot). Found: Olivine (some high iron content/some low iron content) Forsterite (low iron high chromium content) Iron sulfide spinel osbornite Two possibilities: minerals formed in inner most region of solar nebula and then migrated out to orbit of Pluto or beyond; or formed around hot regions of other stars and migrated to our solar nebula. Studies of isotopes will determine origin. Conference is still going on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

yevaud · Mar 13, 2006

Interesting. Of course, statistics alone would preclude there being substantial amounts of material originating in some other system and migrating here, although we certainly could see a small amount of mass with Extrasolar origins here and there. The trick is determining the one from the other. <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 · Mar 13, 2006

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? 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. proves everything about how core accretion theory is WRONG daddy-o. and that has EVERTHING TO DO with solar system formation INCLUDING COMETS, BUDDY. and this throws into severe question how comets form, why they are there, and it violates the flawed, tired, myopic, trite, stupid theory that is FALSE about terrestrial planets being ALWAYS close to the sun and volatiles being farther. THIS IS NOT TRUE. and now the mods are all on board to support your idea that it is scientifically "A OK, BUDDY" to IGNORE these facts of solar system stucture!!! LOL!!!!!!! what a joke!!!

jatslo · Mar 13, 2006

What stats? I got my high temp, and external source; now all I need is pressure. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

siriusmre · Mar 13, 2006

If (s)he was not trying to link plasma etch chambers with the phenomena observed on Wild 2, then WHY DID SILYLENE EVEN MENTION IT IN THIS THREAD? If (s)he thought that plasma etching and comet "outgassing" were completely separate processes, then why do those two concepts occupy the same (or adjacent) space in Silylene's brain? Why even offer it as a point of information, if the processes are so disperate? So, just by the act of making some kind of conceptual link between what (s)he sometimes sees at work in a contaminated plasma etch chamber and the "weird crystals" ejected by Wild 2 is, to me, if not the same as what I have been suggesting, then very, very close to it. Try to spin it however you want, (s)he is making that connection. Further, Yevaud, I would agree with Silylene that these APPARENT connections warrant more study. How 'bout you? Of course, we could just let Silylene tell us what (s)he meant... <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Sirius (and you here) are stating certitudes.<hr /></blockquote> And thank goodness that you and others around here NEVER do that when discussing things like "black holes," "neutron stars," "accretion disks," or, more on-topic, the composition of comets. Unbelievable... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> BTW, any of you "mainstream model" apologists have any comment about the actual *content* of my post--not the style? How about the pics? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Mar 13, 2006

proves everything about how core accretion theory is WRONG daddy-o. and that has EVERTHING TO DO with solar system formation INCLUDING COMETS, BUDDY. Proof please. it violates the flawed, tired, myopic, trite, stupid theory that is FALSE about terrestrial planets being ALWAYS close to the sun and volatiles Please go look at the organization of our Solar System - the one in question - and tell me which Gas Giant is located Solwards of Earth. And then which Rocky planet is Outsystem of the Asteroid Belt. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Mar 13, 2006

Simply, we have always made it clear that any given scientific theory is a work-in-progress. They also have the attraction of being able to accurately (as best we can) describe what we observe, why, how, and can predict certain things. That these theories alter in light on new discoveries shouldn't surprise anyone. Explain to me, in detail, the hundreds of thousands of man-hours of work, theory that works reasonably well, observations and whatnot, that proves your claims. You cannot. <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 · Mar 13, 2006

dude, you're totally sidestepping the FACT that gas giants orbit near the primary, first and foremost in order!!! and you deny this has ANYTHING to do with solar system structure, regardless if ours is structured differently. what if a gas giant was near Sol, too, sunshine? how about that? you gonna deny that possibility, too? i bet you will!!! this is NOT a science board.

siriusmre · Mar 13, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Samples were formed at extremely high temps; that is, minerals that formed under high temp conditions (red hot or white hot).<hr /></blockquote> Hm. Red or white hot. You don't say? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Two possibilities: minerals formed in inner most region of solar nebula and then migrated out to orbit of Pluto or beyond; or formed around hot regions of other stars and migrated to our solar nebula.<hr /></blockquote> Yep, that pretty much exhausts all of the possibilities, right there. (The second one is my favorite, though. Actually, it sounds a lot like bonzelite's idea, which was summarily shot down.) Clearly, there's nothing else going on... Oh, wait--there is at least one more thing... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Mar 13, 2006

Hm. Red or white hot. You don't say? Most of the entire Solar System was this way once, early on. This is not a surprise. it sounds a lot like bonzelite's idea, which was summarily shot down. Incorrect. You have this backwards. Bonzelite has failed to prove anything. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Mar 13, 2006

The heat of a planet core was not mentioned, as in exploding planet, so there are other possibilities that were not mentioned. Only the top two popular hypothecations were mentioned as secondary evidence. There is still much data on the way.

siriusmre · Mar 13, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Explain to me, in detail, the hundreds of thousands of man-hours of work, theory that works reasonably well, observations and whatnot, that proves your claims.<hr /></blockquote> What, do you want a graduate-level dissertation? Puh-leeze! <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Why do I need to do the work for you? Find the answers yourself. I have posted many links to help you get started. Is it my fault that you have a mental block about examining--and not even necessarily accepting--ideas that seem strange to you? You know exactly where to go to find those answers. Sadly, and somewhat strangely, you do not seem truly interested in those ideas. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Mar 13, 2006

What, do you want a graduate-level dissertation? Something not based almost solely on your opinion would be good, yes. Directly relevant evidence and observation would be as well. So far, you've provided neither. Although, you have attempted to link not-related and disparate concepts as proof. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

telfrow · Mar 13, 2006

Other notes from the conference: Interstellar capture samples have not been examined. The samples are so small that technologies do not exist to properly study them. Stardust image scans start next week to begin Stardust at home. For Wild 2 samples, difference in solar isotopes and the dust/particles from other solar nebulas/stars will be wildly different than those from our system.Studies of the isotopes will be completed at a later date. Cometary particles formed at extremely high temps (1500k? - not sure about that one. They only mentioned it once.) Surprises in samples: high temperature minerals, same as in meteorites; very similar to Chondrites. Samples range from less than the diameter of human hair (10mm) to less than 1mm. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

yevaud · Mar 13, 2006

Magnificent work. Thanks for the updates. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

maxtheknife · Mar 13, 2006

Yevaud: Bonzelite has failed to prove anything. Lol... so have you.

telfrow · Mar 13, 2006

From PhysOrg.com Comet from coldest spot in solar system has material from hottest places Scientists analyzing recent samples of comet dust have discovered minerals that formed near the sun or other stars. That means materials from the innermost part of the solar system could have traveled to the outer reaches, where comets formed. "The interesting thing is we are finding these high-temperature minerals in materials from the coldest place in the solar system," said Donald Brownlee, a University of Washington astronomer who is principal investigator, or lead scientist, for NASA's Stardust mission. Among the finds in material brought back by Stardust is olivine, a mineral that is the primary component of the green sand found on some Hawaiian beaches. It is among the most common minerals in the universe, but finding it in comet Wild 2 could challenge a common view of how such crystalline materials form. Olivine is a compound of iron, magnesium and other elements, in which the iron-magnesium mixture ranges from being nearly all iron to nearly all magnesium. The Stardust sample is primarily magnesium. Many astronomers believe olivine crystals form from glass when it is heated close to stars, Brownlee said. One puzzle is why such crystals came from Wild 2, a comet that formed beyond the orbit of Neptune when the solar system began some 4.6 billion years ago. "It's certain such materials never formed inside this icy, cold body," Brownlee said. The comet traveled the frigid environs of deep space until 1974, when a close encounter with Jupiter brought it to the inner solar system. Besides olivine, the dust from Wild 2 also contains exotic, high-temperature minerals rich in calcium, aluminum and titanium. "I would say these materials came from the inner, warmest parts of the solar system or from hot regions around <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

jatslo · Mar 13, 2006

Seems to me that the evidence is pouring in as we speak, so lets wait for a bit, assemble the facts, and then take it from there. RED HOT; WHITE HOT can be electric, and I see nothing wrong with it. I would like to see some scholarly work on the subject, dissertation, journal, article, etc., so if anyone has some, please pass it over.

yevaud · Mar 13, 2006

Let me see now... Our Solar System, for which we have a great deal of observation over hundreds of years. Much information rolling in as we speak. On the other hand, Extrasolar planets, of which we have some imagery, but not of the entire system imaged. We have no idea as to the full composition or organization of those systems. One contradicts the other, but then again, we are in our own Solar System and it is the region of space under discussion. Proof has not been provided. <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 · Mar 13, 2006

ALL RIGHT! That's enough, folks. You can cut the hostility on this thread with a knife. I am seeing several members being highly disrespectful of other members and openly hostile to differences of opinion. Ironically, it is those who ought to know better, because they are the ones complaining the most about their opinions not getting the time they deserve. I want it to stop. Now. You can't expect others to be nice to you if you refuse to respect them. <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 · Mar 13, 2006

Dude, THIS IS A DISCUSSION FORUM. Opinion is the one thing that each of us has. And your posts are NOT based on your opinion? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Where's your "proof" that the early "solar nebula" looked and behaved the way that you say? Where's the "proof" of the "big bang?" Of "supermassive black holes?" I'll concede that one could say that there's *evidence* of these fantastical things, but one could also interpret the *evidence* in a completely different way--perhaps as fantastically. And some do. but, let's at least talk about it. The atmosphere here of shutting down only certain lines of discussion is...unseemly. Also, the fact that you do not accept my citations is not my problem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

maxtheknife · Mar 13, 2006

Hi Siruis... These guys don't like to work. And when they actually do... Its usually really, really, sloppy and wrong.

siriusmre · Mar 13, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You can't expect others to be nice to you if you refuse to respect them.<hr /></blockquote> Truer words were never written. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

"Weird Crystals" Found in Comet Wild 2 Sample

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

telfrow

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

yevaud

Guest

telfrow

Guest

yevaud

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

jatslo

Guest

yevaud

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page