Was Velikovsky right

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Devino

The dirty snowball theory doesn’t seem to do well in light of data and samples that have been collected over the last few decades.

Really? Could you post links to the papers on cometary material analysis that disprove the theory?

Most of this information has been available online for over ten years now, it’s nothing new. I did read a paper on the analysis of the stardust mission of comet Wild2 some years ago. If I have time and can find it I’ll link it here. Until then I hope these links will suffice.

Researchers studying samples of Comet Wild 2 (pronounced "Vilt 2") embedded in Stardust's gel-filled collector found that the minerals formed under extremely high temperatures - such as those near a star

www.space.com...

“Many people imagined that comets formed in total isolation from the rest of the solar system. We have shown that’s not true,” said Donald Brownlee back in 2006, principal investigator for Stardust.

www.universetoday.com...#
So much for "Originating from the Outer Solar System".

Comets, they said, may not be as simple as the clouds of ice, dust and gases they were thought to comprise. They may be diverse with complex and varied histories. Wild 2 seems to be an example of that complexity.
"It seems that comets are … a mixture of materials formed at all temperatures, at places very near the early sun and at places very remote from it,"
Olivine's components include iron, magnesium and other elements. The Wild 2 samples have other high-temperature materials containing calcium, aluminum and titanium.

www.nasa.gov...

Comets may be more than just simple conglomerations of ice, dust and gases...
Scientists have found a wide range of compositions and structures for the comet Wild 2 particles that were captured and returned to Earth by NASA's Stardust spacecraft. Their findings indicate the formation of at least some comets may have included materials ejected from the inner solar system to the far and cold outer edge of the solar nebula.

stardust.jpl.nasa.gov...
Doesn't sound much like a "Dirty Snowball" to me.

"The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice,"
"Comet Borrelly is in the inner solar system right now, and it's hot, between 26 and 71 degrees Celsius (80 and 161 degrees Fahrenheit),

www.jpl.nasa.gov...
Hot and dry, very little water ice detected.
To be fair the amount of comets we have closely studied so far is a very small sample compared to how many we think are out there.

a reply to: Devino

Hot and dry, very little water ice detected.

Yes. On the surface. Did you notice that part? That would be because, exposed to sunlight, water sublimates leaving a surface of dirt.
We've learned more about comets since 2002. You should look into more recent data.

a reply to: Phage
I'm still waiting for the "Dirty Snowball" that originated from the outer solar system. Evidence seems to show that this isn't what comets are, at least on the ones we've looked at.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Devino

How was he wrong? Seriously I would like to read your take on this.

Already pointed out by Phage and by me. Velikovsky said Venus was hot because Venus was a comet. Venus is not a comet, and anyway, comets aren’t hot.
Comets have no internal heat. They are as cold as the depths of space until the Sun warms them up.

I’m not sure I understand your reasoning here. Venus is not a comet and comets are not hot so Velikovsky was wrong?

We know Venus is a planet but what we don’t know is where it originated from. The current theory is accretion disk formation yet the possibility that it was a captured planet remains. This does not mean I agree with Velikovsky, however. There are other, much bigger, problems with his theory.

a reply to: Devino
There are actually several populations of comets, but evidence actually does support the theory that they are composed predominately of various ices (not just water) with other material included. The theory is actually supported by the findings that the surface of comets is not ice, as I pointed out.

The current theory is accretion disk formation yet the possibility that it was a captured planet remains.

Not really. Unless you want to say that Mercury is captured, and Earth is captured, and Mars is captured, and...

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Devino

I also remember reading back in 2004 and 2012 during the Venus solar transits that its ion tail was measured by Earth orbiting satellites.

Earth has a similar tail.

Earth also has a magnetic field which Venus does not. Earth's dust tail is from "interplanetary dust", from your linked source, and not from it's atmosphere. It kind of makes Venus More "Comet Like" I think.

a reply to: Devino

The moon has no magnetic field. Is it a comet?
neo.jpl.nasa.gov...

Is Mars a comet? Pluto?
www.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Devino
There are actually several populations of comets, but evidence actually does support the theory that they are composed predominately of various ices (not just water) with other material included. The theory is actually supported by the findings that the surface of comets is not ice, as I pointed out.

The point I am trying to make is that comets are evolving away from the dirty snowball theory as more information is gathered. They are much more complex and are comprised of many more things than mostly water ice.

The current theory is accretion disk formation yet the possibility that it was a captured planet remains.

originally posted by: Phage
Not really. Unless you want to say that Mercury is captured, and Earth is captured, and Mars is captured, and...

If Venus was captured then why would the other planets have to be captured as well?

I simply think it's an interesting possibility. I don't think it actually happened, especially not the way Velikovsky makes claim. I agree with you in that it would take a long time for a planet like Venus to settle into a stable orbit. I think the order of millions of years is far to low.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Devino

The moon has no magnetic field. Is it a comet?
neo.jpl.nasa.gov...

Is Mars a comet? Pluto?
www.nasa.gov...

Now your being ridiculous. That's fine, thanks for the impute.

a reply to: Devino

The point I am trying to make is that comets are evolving away from the dirty snowball theory as more information is gathered. They are much more complex and are comprised of many more things than mostly water ice.

Not really. The basic idea is the same but more detailed information is being obtained.

If Venus was captured then why would the other planets have to be captured as well?

What makes Venus special? What makes it plausible that it was spat out of Jupiter and zoomed around the Solar System?

I simply think it's an interesting possibility. I don't think it actually happened, especially not the way Velikovsky makes claim.

It's a possibility? You don't think it happened?
en.wikipedia.org...

Velikovsky has a wild imagination. As do most humans i've had the privelege of listening to, in this area.

originally posted by: Phage

I simply think it's an interesting possibility. I don't think it actually happened, especially not the way Velikovsky makes claim.

It's a possibility? You don't think it happened?

I suppose I should have said it’s an interesting idea but I don’t think it happened the way Velikovsky claims. There is a big problem with conservation of momentum.

originally posted by: awareness10
Velikovsky has a wild imagination. As do most humans i've had the privelege of listening to, in this area.

I agree. It's very thought provoking. I found an old video of Carl Sagan on this subject. I enjoyed his perspective, especially that last minute.

originally posted by: anonentity
. Perhaps this is what ancient histories are recording.

Ancient histories have recorded no such thing, you are looking for an explanation for something that didn't happen

a reply to: Devino

You certainly have done your research, but I think you may be a little hazy on context.

formed under extremely high temperatures — such as those near a star

Yes. That’s the dirt in the snowball.

“Many people imagined that comets formed in total isolation from the rest of the solar system. We have shown that’s not true.” So much for "Originating from the Outer Solar System".

The outer Solar System is still the Solar System. Comets are still Sol’s children.

Olivine's components include iron, magnesium and other elements. The Wild 2 samples have other high-temperature materials containing calcium, aluminum and titanium.

More dirt. Did you expect them to capture hydrogen and hydroxyl ions? How?

hot and dry.

Please look up ‘sublimation’. And ask yourself what, exactly, in space is wet.

Doesn't sound much like a "Dirty Snowball" to me.

A pity about that, since that’s what most comets are. 'Dirty snowball’ is, of course, an oversimplification. But comets are mostly water ice and other volatiles.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: ZIPMATT

Nobody tell me they landed on the moon , I will laugh in yr face!

We landed on the Moon. You can laugh till you choke and it will still be true.

LOLOLol then ! Twice ! Great big ball bags !

On topic though , Velikovsky's book Worlds In Collision is still a serious challenge to established geography and geology and history ,
so serious he had to add 101 pages of absolute balony about Venus to the end of it , thereby obfuscating his sensibly anticipated critics . So about Venus , (no) he was wrong because he (must have) made it up on the spot , the reason being he was most likely right about alot of stuff in the texts he took his time over . Its a bit like saying , "you want to take a bite out of me ? ....then here , have a giant bull-burger to get your teeth into... ( before picking off these other more delicate morsels)" .
Maybe nasa took a leaf from his book too then .. moon landings indeed !

originally posted by: Astyanax
The outer Solar System is still the Solar System. Comets are still Sol’s children.

Inner solar system origins are what I was referring to. Maybe I’m just ‘splitting hairs’ here. There are also traces of outer solar system particles as well as extra stellar dust that predates the age of our solar system.

More dirt. Did you expect them to capture hydrogen and hydroxyl ions?

I wish. They do talk about measuring single molecules found on Stardust’s aerogel. They don’t seem to be 100% sure it's not terrestrial contamination.

Please look up ‘sublimation’. And ask yourself what, exactly, in space is wet.

I did try to look up sublime temperature in the vacuum of space but came up empty. It appears that without pressure liquid water cannot exist but I am not sure if that is correct.

A pity about that, since that’s what most comets are. 'Dirty snowball’ is, of course, an oversimplification. But comets are mostly water ice and other volatiles.

Fine, dirty snowballs it is. I’ll still remain skeptical though. I would like to see a mission to collect core samples to get a better idea of what these things are made up of and how much H2O there may be.

I am also curious about comet jets. Are there any images of comet nuclei showing any holes or pits created by these jets?

Here is a video explaining more about the stardust mission and the source to some of the claims I made in this post.

a reply to: Devino

Are there any images of comet nuclei showing any holes or pits created by these jets?

Jets have been seen to originate from a large diversity of morphological features on the comet’s surface, such as pits, cliffs or icy boulder fields. Rosetta Blog