What's Going on With Comets?

[jatslo]

We need a rather large vacuum to catch comets; any ideas? I already tried contacting Hoover, so that is out.

 

[bonzelite]

^^^borman, that is excellent dialogue. i actually did consider the comets being older than Sol itself. i considered the scientists could "carbon date" the particles. were they to discover the particles to exceed, say, 10 billion years in age, that would vastly predate our solar system. that would pretty much shut the door on any more theories that involve Sol or local on-campus origin. <br /><br />i am apt to believe, when talking about the "lone wanderer" scenario of comets, that if they are sufficiently ancient, they could have been on a journey so vast and far among the dust lanes that what results is exactly what we see: the cometary nuclei --tiny by planetary standards, but accreted loosely as it picked up dust electrostatically. <br /><br />to address the utter vastness of the void: comets, if ancient, may be the fossilized remains of the early bombardment epoch of the solar system, and, perhaps, of other systems coalescing simultaneously aeons ago. <br /><br />i enjoy our collaborative hypothesis. <br /><br />

 

[siriusmre]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Just a speculation on how to bridge the meter to kilometer gap that has plagued accretion scenarios.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Anybody have any more information about this? Or links? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...the agony of victory...as it only opens up more details to be pinned down. <br />The thrill of defeat...as it actually closes a line of questioning." -- Saiph</font><br /><br />Scientists love questions, unexpected results, and unexplained observations.<br /><br />Pseudoscientists love answers. All their energy goes into devising an answer rather than studying the questions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[maxtheknife]

Now <i><b>that's</b></i> funny!!!

 

[centsworth_II]

Thank you. The best humor is rooted in truth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Saiph]

I was just pointing out the other side to that phrase when it comes to persuing knowledge. It can be very satisfying to know that something is definetly not the answer (even if you'd worked towards it for a while...thus defeat). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

I was oversimplifying. Of course scientists love answers -- both affirmative and negative. They just don't like made-up answers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Potential "answers" that have real-world testable consequences that differ from existing "answers" are the best. <br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[robnissen]

That would be a stunning if any of the Stardust samples were definitively proven to be older than 5B years.

 

[jatslo]

astrobio.net said, "<font color="gold">Brownlee said, "This fortunate opportunity at the asteroid increases our probability of success next year at the comet ( * HERE * )."</font>" <--- The use of "Probability" in these correspondences suggests to me that there is an actual hypothesis in the mist; however, I have not found access to one, as of yet. Oh, this is old news related to Comet: Wild 2. I am trying to find a simple hypothesis for Yevaud, because he is interested in confidence levels, and/or {alpha}. Something with standard deviation, degrees of freedom, etc. I can make a pretend one, but I would rather find a real one. Any takers?

 

[jatslo]

Clearly, nobody knows, or has *no* time; therefore, the use of statistics and/or probability should not be a delimiting factor in these discussions/debates, because nobody is using them correctly. If Dr. Wayne would take a minute to explain this fact, then maybe these discussions will move up or down an intellectual notch, as a result. I didn't surf here to swap spit.

 

[jatslo]

CalliArcale says, "... <font color="pink">Saturn's rings as an example ..."</font> (Sample (x)) "... <font color="pink">of a system which shows characteristics consistent with possibly</font> ..." Whoops! This is speculation/conjecture without actual numbers, and is actually a baseless hypothesis. Please insert (Confidence Interval), or (Alpha), so that I may validate. "... <font color="pink"> being part of a larger body that has since broken up.</font> " <--- Calli, You are missing a couple of other things, as in (s), and (n); therefore, I cannot quantify your idea as hypothecation. This next sequence is the start of a new hypothesis, in which some terminology is utilized, but not substantiated. --->"... <font color="pink">It is <i><b>certain</b></i> that they are younger than the planet, due to their orbital characteristics, so it's a very reasonable hypothesis.</font> " I am pleased that you are referring to "Hypothesis" for what it is; however, there is more to hypothesis for all to see, and that is where the intellectual bar resides. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> The only reason I am entertaining this thought is because I noticed Yevaud, and others bickering about statistics, and probability in this thread, and no one that I can see even knows what the heck there are talking about, and/or does not have time. I am *NO* statistician, but I know that you are missing (s), (alpha, or CI), (n), and (x); I will leave it at that, because you are not challenging an existing hypothesis.<br /><br />I have spent more time on semantics, than I actually wanted too, but the audience should know how I plan to (KNIT PICK) bias, not that you are biased. I just used you as an sample (s). Yes, I feel a hypothesis forming. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[jatslo]

Saiph says, "... <font color="gold">definetly not the answer</font> ..." <--- Very good; I will buy "Definitely"; however, would you be kind enough to provide a sample (s) that is related to comets, so that I may learn? TY--- PS; I expect, (x), (s), (alpha;CI), and (n), at least.

 

[cosmictalk]

Here is a fancy from my side! <br /><br />How about two big huge inconceivable somethings (throw in Asteroids for a picture) collide? causing the scattering and reactions of all we see. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />Well something had to start the fire!

 

[dmjspace]

Some have suggested that the recent Wild 2 findings are not really anomalous. Yet one need only look at the press releases coming out of NASA to see that this is not the case:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> The new Stardust sample data are themselves colliding headlong with previous comet theories.... </font><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> [The findings are] the opposite of existing models of comet formation.... </font><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> The findings stunned the more than 1,500 international planetary scientists and managers at the 37th annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (LPSC).... </font><br /><br />The truth is that the Stardust findings clash violently with expectations, regardless of whether or how quickly "patches" are applied to the dirty snowball model.<br /><br />One can always explain anomalies by applying new variables, but science dictates that we minimize such instances. After all, the principle of Occam's razor impels us to "invent no unnecessary hypotheses."<br /><br />The EPH insists that Wild 2 is a rocky body, and that it formed in a high temperature environment. The historical data as well as the newest data support that hypothesis.<br /><br />The simplest answer to the problem of high temperature formation is of course that Wild 2's parent body originated and/or resided in the inner solar system.<br /><br />Future data will almost surely provide further confirmation of the EPH. Specifically, the Stardust samples should reveal shockingly young cosmic exposure ages. Shocking to the standard model, at least. <br /><br />This is because the proposed planetary breakup occurred far more recently than the dirty snowball model, in any form, could predict.<br /><br />It is truly exciting to see the scientific process at work. We are finally getting data that can help us reject certain hypotheses. Clearly, the dirty snowball model

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">Clearly, the dirty snowball model is on its way out.</font><br /><br />+1

 

[robnissen]

"Future data will almost surely provide further confirmation of the EPH. Specifically, the Stardust samples should reveal shockingly young cosmic exposure ages. Shocking to the standard model, at least. "<br /><br />What age for the Stardust particles does the EPH predict?

 

[robnissen]

Comets just keep getting weirder and weirder. Now we have comets orbiting in the main asteroid belt: <br /><br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060324_mainbeltcomets_water.html<br /><br />I'm sure the EPH crowd will have something to say about this.

 

[dmjspace]

RobNissen said: <font color="yellow"> Comets just keep getting weirder and weirder. Now we have comets orbiting in the main asteroid belt... <br /><br />I'm sure the EPH crowd will have something to say about this. </font><br /><br />Naturally.<br /><br />From the article Comets Posing as Asteroids Might be Source of Earth’s Water :<br /><br /><i> Three comets exhibiting quite <b> uncomet-like behavior </b> have been found orbiting the Sun in a manner more expected of rocky asteroids. Dubbed “main-belt comets” by researchers, the objects <b> suggests that comets and asteroids share more in common than previously thought, </b> and that water found on Earth may have also taken root in the asteroid belt. </i> [my emphasis]<br /><br />The EPH insists that the asteroid belt represents fragments from a former oceanic parent body which orbited where the belt is now, as implied by the so-called Titius-Bode law.<br /><br />The EPH predicts that comets and asteroids are similar, having shared the same parent, and that observations will continue to confirm that comets are not balls of ice. This is just the latest of a long string of studies that strongly support the EPH.<br /><br />The article continues:<br /><i> Asteroids tend to be made of rock and metal. Comets, which typically spend most of their existence beyond Neptune and visit the inner solar system infrequently if ever, hold more water ice and other icy chemicals and are often called icy dirtballs. </i><br /><br />Just a few short years ago, comets used to be referred to as "dirty snowballs." As EPH proponents (including myself) predicted long ago, astronomers have revised their comet terminology slowly but surely to reflect the narrowing gap between asteroids and comets.<br /><br />From the article:<br /><i> Their observations found the “asteroid” was ejecting dust like a comet. </i><br /><br />In the EPH, which insists that come

 

[dmjspace]

RobNissen said: <font color="yellow"> What age for the Stardust particles does the EPH predict? </font><br /><br />Certainly far less than what the dirty snowball predicts...in the range of tens of millions of years, as opposed to billions.