Where's the discussion on Stardust data?

spacester · Mar 18, 2006

So I take it the whole discussion of what the Stardust data means is a taboo topic? How else do you explain why one of the most significant solar system science discoveries of our time has been relegated to Phenomena? DISGUSTING! Please see my sign-off on the Suggestions forum. link <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Mar 18, 2006

extrasolar origin is suggested by the recent press release: http://space.com/scienceastronomy/060313_stardust_update.html "Pieces of a comet returned to Earth by NASA’s Stardust spacecraft apparently formed near the Sun or around another star altogether before being flung to the outer edges of the Solar System, mission scientists said Monday. ...The finding – announced on the 20th anniversary of the European probe Giotto’s rendezvous with Comet Halley in 1986 – perplexed Stardust researchers and added a new wrinkle in astronomers’ understanding of how comets, and possibly the Solar System, formed." some thoughts: comets may form extrasolar-wise and then become captured by solar systems. comets may or may not form within a solar system. they could or they could not; both ways may occur, however. some comets with very long periods may have never visited the earth's sun before, and may never again, failing to enter capture of the sun and onto a trajectory to oblivion. others become trapped and stay forever. some dive headlong into the sun, into a fiery death. comets' journeys may be millenia long, ejected from exploded stars; they may build up and accumulate particulate matter as they sweep through the galaxy. the weird crystals in question could possibly be extrasolar in origin. it is currently impossible to know this, but it may be true. provided the immensity of the dust lane structures in galaxies, there may be millions of crystalline structural variants that will go unknown forever. we just happened to get lucky and find these specific ones. and they may never be found again, or they may be common to the extrasolar environment. i am not certain how comets actually come into being. i am suggesting possible ways that involve extrasolar, even pan-galactic, origin. and these idea

yevaud · Mar 18, 2006

Since this has been a bone of contention this evening, let me state for the record: Unlike the EU thread recently moved, this thread is perfectly appropriate. While many of us disagree as to the origins and composition of comets, the debate is reasonably wide-open. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

spacester · Mar 18, 2006

Allow me to quote my previous attempt to participate in meaningful discussion, an attempt that was ignored in favor of petty bickering on the part of the people who we've entrusted with the future of this forum: Stardust was intended to get data to help us understand the origins of our solar system. Regarding Solar System formation, if a person wanted to understand the current theory, be aware of alternate theories, and read a nice discussion of how the early Stardust data reflects on those theories, one might suppose this would be a good place to go. So far, one would be wrong in that supposition. Perhaps the third time's a charm? I'm gonna feign some ignorance in the interest of getting a good discussion going and I'm gonna ask a simple question or two. I am also going to ask everyone to leave their baggage at the door here. I don't know or care about how many threads y'all have done on this subject. Let's start from scratch, and I for one am much more interested in getting an overall grasp (as indicated above) than in any agenda. The matter that the solar system is made from came from somewhere else, right? Current mainstream theory has that blob swirling around and coalescing into a star and some other stuff, right? So why is it a surprise that some comet particles were formed in high heat? My simple conclusion is that these particles were formed elsewhere (in a star?) and became part of this comet without being some of the Sol-making stuff. I take it there are two "sides" to this discussion. I am interested in hearing simple explanations from both and possibly other viewpoints. If you have an 'alternate theory' then explain it. If you are 'mainstream', explain that too please. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Mar 18, 2006

Frankly, there seem to be two areas under intense debate in this area: Whether or not comets are mostly volatiles, or comets are mostly asteroidal (rocky) in composition. To what degree comets may contain material of extrasolar origin. I am a relative mainliner, and believe that comets are more volatiles than anything else. I further believe that there may, and likely will, be some material found of extrasolar origin, but it's unlikely that entire comets will be found originating from outside this solar system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

spacester · Mar 18, 2006

Well, that's a start. But I do not make idle threats, and I've said that I am outta here. This forum has been banned from my online activities for one week. After that time, I'll return and see if the Powers That Be here are capable of hosting an honest discussion on this topic. You know, like we used to have on this forum . . . Based on recent history, I predict that the topic will have degenerated to bickering and subsequent suppression. Either that or it will have slipped way down the list because all the dissenting opinions have been driven off and the PTB want to see the whole uncomfortable topic go away. If you really want the various denials of suppression to be taken seriously, you will make a concerted effort to *host* a good discussion. I don't think the people who have taken control of these forums have that capability, and if I'm right, the ban will become permanent. I apologize for not staying on topic, but must note at the same time that my simple questions remain unanswered. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Mar 18, 2006

Your affair. I regret it, but obviously you, like anyone, will have to make up their own mind. 1. Comets comprised of more volatiles than rocky matter: Although we have only performed close flybys or impacts of a very small handful of comets, we do have a great deal of spectroscopic data from many comets. In the great preponderance of those, strong H2O signatures have been seen. As well, we know that the Kuiper Belt and Oort cloud are a huge reservoir of volatile materials. This is why current astronomy thought on the matter favors the volatiles-preponderating point of view. 2. Mostly not of extrasolar origin: It has been pointed out precisely how vast the space between solar systems is. Our entire solar system is literally a speck in the void. Given this, it seems unlikely that large amounts of extrasolar material would appear, given (as stated above) the presence of plenty of material right here. It's not to say it's precluded - just very unlikely. I trust that's a bit more detailed. <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 18, 2006

Hi Spacester, Have you seen this article? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

CalliArcale · Mar 18, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />It has been pointed out precisely how vast the space between solar systems is. Our entire solar system is literally a speck in the void. Given this, it seems unlikely that large amounts of extrasolar material would appear, given (as stated above) the presence of plenty of material right here. It's not to say it's precluded - just very unlikely. <hr /></blockquote> Of course, it's possible (remotely) that our solar system is very peculiar in having comets in their particular arrangement, in which case maybe they did all come from somewhere else or otherwise arrive in some similarly unlikely fashion. The best way to test that would be to investigate other solar systems. If other solar systems have Oort Clouds, it would contradict that notion. So far, it is extremely difficult to test this. However, I did read an article about one star with a dust cloud around it strongly resembling what an Oort Cloud is thought to look like. It's premature to make too many absolute conclusions, but it does tend to support the notion that most, if not all, of the comets have been a part of the solar system since its birth. <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 · Mar 19, 2006

from the other thread: weird crystals more thoughts on comets: comets, in the pristine model, ie, ancient objects, if true, may point to comets being intergalactic, extrasolar, wanderers. often, in edge-on views of galaxies, we are accustomed to seeing obfuscating "dust lanes." these structures are fairly common and observed with regularity. so, then, these dust lanes must be a common component of galaxies. comets are dust. that is basically what science is observing, regardless of what volatiles are present in cometary tails. therefore, an overall composite view, albeit limited to only a handfull of observed comets, is showing us that comets are composed of very super-fine materials, such as dust and ice, compacted into a freeze-dried and very porous object. what i'm getting to is that such objects as comets may originate far and beyond any one solar system. they may be borne out of the pervasive and encircling dust lanes throughout galactic structures. how they accrete is unknown, but they may form in variations upon the basic accretion theme depending on how far or near they are to a star: the longer their journey, the more dust they accumulate over vast distances. because of their wanderlusting ways, so to speak, they accrete only as very porous and loose bodies, picking up superfine dust as they go, never becoming very compacted overall. older coma may be larger, with a more compacted core. in this way, comets may indeed be pristine carriers of matter from the galaxy itself and not only the local solar system. particles, then, may be entirely foreign to this solar system's commonly found elements. comets may be regularly replenished. comets may form extrasolar-wise and then become captured by solar systems. comets may or may not form within a

Saiph · Mar 19, 2006

I'll take a crack at them: The concern over comets having materials formed in high heat is they aren't really that large. As such, they can't have generated tons of heat via gravitational contraction. They probably lack enough radioactive particles for heating that way (due to size again). That leaves a few alternatives that i can think of: Matter made elsewhere, and deposited. Possible, but I think unlikely to be the common case due to the sheer size of interstellar distances such material would have to cross (if it's extrasolar). Though there may be mechanisms form interplanetary transport of such materials. High heat applied to the comet itself...not sure how this would happen. EU style ideas have been proposed, but I haven't seen a convincing explaination of how/why it works...just claims that it does. *feel free to help me out on this issue*...but I will be critical/skeptical cause I've run into many problems with the underlying EU theories. Things we know in general: The density of comets are near that of ice-water. Many comets are seen spewing out large amounts of water. Recent sample missions indicate dry surfaces, with deepish dust layers. Not much information on underlying strata. Feel free to add to this, I haven't been able to follow as well as I'd like. Bonze: Hot jupiters can exist in the standard accretion theory. Two large objects forming near eachother can really create strange orbits. What will almost always happen when two similar objects are in similar orbits is one steals the orbital energy of the other. This results in one being farther out, and one beng closer in. So in standard accretion theory...if two jupiter size objects form in similar orbits, one will probably be chucked in towards the star. Is it odd we see so many hot jupiters, and not so many other types of planetary systems? Not really, as our detection methods heavily favor the detection of large p <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"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" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

colesakick · Mar 19, 2006

Yevaud, they report that of 134 specks looked at so far, 1 in 4 is a mineral formed under high heat but say nothing of whether the remainder are volitiles. Maybe they were just too excited about the "fire" objects to state if they had confirmation of "ice" objects. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

bonzelite · Mar 19, 2006

Is it odd we see so many hot jupiters, and not so many other types of planetary systems? Not really, as our detection methods heavily favor the detection of large planets close to the star. As we get better methods we are finding more and more planetary systems of a more "traditional" distribution. some of the gas giants are nearly touching the star they orbit. no other planet could be within such an orbit. traditional solar system structure theory is incorrect.

vogon13 · Mar 19, 2006

How 'bout incomplete ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

bonzelite · Mar 19, 2006

^^^right. undoubtedly incomplete. and probably wrong.

Saiph · Mar 19, 2006

if you get close enough to a star or object, your orbit can decay, bringing you even closer. Another alternative is brown dwarf formation in a binary system. Many binary stars are very close together. The "hot jupiters" we see could also be composed of binary stars..but where one of them failed to become very large, and stopped at the brown dwarf phase (i.e. very large gas planet...like the hot jupiters). They're close because sometimes the condensing cloud of gas forming one star, splits into two because it's rotating to fast. The second glob doesn't go to far, and forms another star near the primary. BTW, I think I've run across papers that report models of planetary formation, using standard theory, have been able to reproduce similar systems. So there are mechanisms at play that need to be identified, investigated etc...and that'll alter the ideas we have. But I don't think what we use now is completely wrong either. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"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" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Mar 19, 2006

solar systems to not conform to the template of rocky planets near sun, gaseous planets far from sun. comets, with volatiles, may not form in the frigid reaches of space, but, instead, in a hellfire bath near or from a sun. some Kuiper Belt Objects of considerable size are in highly eccentric and inclined orbital profiles. overall, these observations that are real dampen the core accretion theory that is popularly known. there is a difference between tweaking a model, and overhauling the model. they're not the same. arrows are pointing to overhauling the model. presently, the only fact is that planetary systems are unknown as to their methods of formation. and a mounting array of evidence, including cometary observations, contradicts official ideas about solar system evolution.

Saiph · Mar 19, 2006

they don't fit well, I'll agree to that, but they don't mean we have to throw everything out: Kupier belt objects, while largish, are quite small in reality. And objects of that size, far from the system barycenter, can easily get tossed around, and/or not form on the equatorial plane. We don't have enough data from studies that aren't experiencing strong selection effects to say how well the idea of "rocky planets near the star, gas planets further out" match. We do understand how it's possible for a gas planet, arising in such a system, can end up near the star. We either get 3-body dynamics, which essentially throws one of the planets inwards...or an aborted star-formation process. Once we get more data that can detect a range of planetary distributions (small rocky planets, normal sized gas giants etc) we'll be better able to determine the accuracy of our model. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"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" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

CalliArcale · Mar 19, 2006

Let's not get too sidetracked on discussion of planetary formation, okay? It does apply to this thread, so discuss it as the Stardust data pertains to it. But the Stardust data may be significant for a lot of other things too, so I don't want to see this thread turn into just a discussion of planetary formation in general. That's something we shoudl probably take to another thread. In fact, it's been coming up in so many other threads, I'm going to do like I did for dark matter and start the new thread. It's time it got a proper discussion. <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 · Mar 19, 2006

noted. thank you.

CalliArcale · Mar 19, 2006

You're welcome. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> One thing that really intrigues me about the Stardust samples is the thought that the particles they collected may not always have been inside the comet. Deep Impact suggested that at least that comet has a very loose structure. If that is common, then it is possible that when comets accrete, they don't produce enough pressure (perhaps purely by virtue of their small size and not anything special about their composition) to destroy minerals which had formed some time previously, perhaps a very long time previously. I guess what I would find most exciting would be if these crystals were not evidence of extrasolar comets (sorry bonzelite) or largescale planetary migration but if they were older than the solar system itself. If these are pieces of the protoplanetary cloud, entombed within comets that formed as parts of the solar system, that just seems really cool to me. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I know I've babbled about that before, though, so I apologize if I'm getting repetitious. (Please tell me if I am; I don't want to annoy.) <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>

Saiph · Mar 19, 2006

Fair enough, figured it was at about that phase, as it kept growing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"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" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Mar 20, 2006

yes, borman and i have both hypothesized comets, at least some of them, to be far older than sol itself, as they may be ancient wanderers gathering superfine dust in the vast lanes of the galaxy. or within the proto-neb enviro of the local system, forming before the planets, then perturbed way the hell out there. either way, you get an ancient wanderer, pockmarked and wise with layers of meaning. i'm not hellbent on extrasolar origin, by the way. but i am definitely on that bandwagon. then again, we could all be wrong and the joke is on us. comets may be younger than previously thought. they're one of the most marvelous enigmas out there. yet they seem so simple. like the sound of one hand clapping.

mental_avenger · Mar 20, 2006

I find it interesting that you have put so much stock in so very very little information. What percent of the possible comets that orbit our solar system do you suppose we have sampled? 1/1000th, 1/100,000th, 1 millionth? If we take into account the objects in the Oort cloud, that hypothetical place where most comets are hypothesized to have come from, what percentage have we sampled? Likewise, our knowledge of solar systems comes almost exclusively from a sample of one, with an extremely small amount of scattered, but woefully incomplete data from a few nearby stars. Until we have a VVLAT looking at distant stars, we won’t be getting sufficient data to draw any conclusions one way or the other. My point is, what is the purpose of getting so excited, so offended, and so belligerent about this? This is only a discussion forum. I seriously doubt that any paradigm altering posts will be made here, or that anyone in the scientific community will either notice or care who said what to whom here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

tdamskov · Mar 20, 2006

CalliArcale, I too find it plausible that these materials may originate from before the protoplanetary cloud. The prevailing theory of how the solar system was created necessitate not only gas clouds primarily of hydrogen, but also the leftovers of the super nova which perturbed the cloud into forming the solar system. These leftovers would appear to be, among other things, the stuff found in the Stardust samples. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5735/737 http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-supernova-olivine-grains_4904.html The question is if the isotope ratios found in the Stardust samples match those we would expect from super nova remnants condensating or those found in processed rock? In any case, here is another idea. Is it possible that the pre-solar super nova may have had orbiting planetoids which were blown apart in the blast? Is there any evidence of planetary formation or dust clouds around stars projected to go super nova?

Where's the discussion on Stardust data?

spacester

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

spacester

Guest

yevaud

Guest

spacester

Guest

yevaud

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

colesakick

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

vogon13

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

tdamskov

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page