It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Comet Dust Reveals Unusual Mixing Of the Solar System

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
it seem scientists are a bit perplexed about how the solar system was created.. the data from comet wild 2 does not paint the picture thay are looking for..


A new analysis of dust from the comet Wild 2, collected in 2004 by NASA's Stardust mission, has revealed an oxygen isotope signature that suggests an unexpected mingling of rocky material between the center and edges of the solar system. Despite the comet's birth in the icy reaches of outer space beyond Pluto, tiny crystals collected from its halo appear to have been forged in the hotter interior, much closer to the sun.


impo they can't say where this object came from originally.. it all seems to be a lot of speculation with no real science..


The result, reported in the Sept. 19 issue of the journal Science by researchers from Japan, NASA and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, counters the idea that the material that formed the solar system billions of years ago has remained trapped in orbits around the sun. Instead, the new study suggests that cosmic material from asteroid belts between Mars and Jupiter can migrate outward in the solar system and mix with the more primitive materials found at the fringes.

source document..



the electrical comet model explains this perfectly and yet these phd's are scratching their heads..

The Electric Comet Model



The electric comet model says that when a comet enters the solar system it get zapped by protons from the sun.. a stream of ions then rushes in from outside the comet to nutralise the charge.. this to me seems to be the method that the new materiel got mixed onto the comet..

'Electric Comet' Could Burn
The House Of Science


Stardust mission yields unexpected bounty

i hope i have this right.. i am sure i will be corrected soon enough if not..

daz__




posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:29 AM
link   
The scientists are just doing what we all do, scrabble in the dark looking for answers.
The thing is that for all the genius and advancements of the world we still don't know much with regards to space etc.

It is going to take NASA which is the foremost authority on space and space travel, years to get to the moon even though they did it in the late sixties.
When the foremost agency cannot do things today that they did nearly forty years ago then we can be pretty sure that as far as their research goes they are unsure at best in their ideas.

The comet could have come from anywhere either inside or outside of the solar system, from what NASA say they thought it was from one place but it has signs its from another and it in fact could be from neither place.

The electric comet model is very interesting as is the electric universe theory but as has been said by many people before, even if the electric models are correct most current scientists would not give up their current models and admit that they may have spent their careers going down a blind alley as it were.

We should take all research and theorys regarding space and the universe with a pinch of salt because like i said before NASA are just doing what we all do, scrabble in the dark for answers.
Trouble is that half the time we don't find answers just more questions.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:33 AM
link   
I wonder if the comet material has any DNA in it's structure? That would sort of prove if life came from elsewhere. I had seen some reports about comet material found in the antarctic region that contained fossil material which begs the question for further research.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mapsurfer_
I wonder if the comet material has any DNA in it's structure? That would sort of prove if life came from elsewhere. I had seen some reports about comet material found in the antarctic region that contained fossil material which begs the question for further research.


alright mapsurfer,,

i do believe they have found some fossil evidence on comets.. not sure about the wild mission but i'm sure i came across an article in the last few days where a scientist was making an estimate on the amount of habital worlds in the universe based on recent findings about earthlike planets found orbiting distant suns..

i would predict that the universe is teaming with life.. i mean if life sprang fourth here on earth then it may be safe to assume we are not alone.

daz__

ps if i find any of the articles i was typing about i'll post them.. i just can't place them at the moment..



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I think sleeper said that the solar system is in a continual process of birth from the sun and expansion outward toward the edges. Interesting.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by full997
The scientists are just doing what we all do, scrabble in the dark looking for answers.
The thing is that for all the genius and advancements of the world we still don't know much with regards to space etc.


alright full997,

dig what you're sayin..

i would also like to add to the bit i quoted you on and that would be that they know so little of what is beneath our oceans that it is no suprise to me that they know next to nothing about space..

daz__



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Grumble
 

hi grumble..

that makes sence to me..

who is sleeper btw..

i got 18,500,000 hits at google for sleeper

daz__


[edit on 25/9/2008 by daz__]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by daz__
the electrical comet model explains this perfectly and yet these phd's are scratching their heads..
If I understood it right, the electrical comet model does not explain what they found.

The problem is not the material added to the asteroid, it's the material used at the beginning of the asteroid's life, I don't think they would be surprised to see material from the places to where it travels.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mapsurfer_
 


Not comet, meteor.

They are not the same thing.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Actually in the Electric universe a asteroid and a comet basically are the same thing the difference is comets have more elliptical orbits that expose them to the varying electric field of the sun. The difference in electric potential is what causes the coma and tail, this is why very little ice has ever been found on comets and this is why the dust samples are closer to what is found in meteorites. Asteroids are at equilibrium with the electric field, Comets are on elliptical orbits and are moving through the varying field.





[edit on 25-9-2008 by squiz]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
and to add..
meteors and meteorites are the rocks that interact with our athmosphere..

daz__



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Actually in the Electric universe a asteroid and a comet basically are the same thing the difference is comets have more elliptical orbits that expose them to the varying electric field of the sun.


There never was much reason for a distinction and i know of at least one additional model that postulates that the differences are minor if their to be made at all.

www.metaresearch.org...



The difference in electric potential is what causes the coma and tail, this is why very little ice has ever been found on comets and this is why the dust samples are closer to what is found in meteorites.


The alternative is obviously that these are not remnants of solar formation but much newer additions to the solar system?


Asteroids are at equilibrium with the electric field, Comets are on elliptical orbits and are moving through the varying field.


Equilibrium? Isn't this just a question of orbit orientation? I like the electric model as much as the next well informed guy but i'm not sure that we have to abuse the model to explain every observation we make.

Either way Tom van Flandern has the credentials and the predictions seem in line with the latest comet/astroid impact findings as well as the state of solar system and it's planets.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by squiz


Equilibrium? Isn't this just a question of orbit orientation? I like the electric model as much as the next well informed guy but i'm not sure that we have to abuse the model to explain every observation we make.

Either way Tom van Flandern has the credentials and the predictions

Stellar


i think the equilibrium squiz speaks about is electrical equilibrium and not orbital equilibrium..

as i understand it objects which have been in our solar-system sphere a while have an electrical equilibrium.. there is also an orbital equilibrium between the planets and some comets etc.. but when a new object enters the solar-system it has an electrical differential which i believe causes them to outburst with coma and tail..

about mr tom.. he has the credentials and more than likely has all the data too..

daz__



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Yep daz, electrical equilibrium.
Even some asteroids have shown some temporary cometary activity, this is impossible under the dirty snowball model.
Actually every bit of data from recent years refutes the model.

It's not surprising that they find elements formed from intense heat. The electrical stress causes arcs that etch the surface away in the observed jets.
This is why the dust is so fine, a sort of cathode sputtering. This is evident also from the images of the comet surface.

Just to add I don't think I'm abusing the model, If there is any abuse it would be from my ignorance of the model and not from any speculation on my part.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by squiz]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
This may be getting away from the original OP so forgive me but there are more interesting implications for the electric comet model.

Not only does it go hand in hand for the electric sun hypothesis, but also with crater formation. From the electrical point of view a comet on impact course with a planet would not impact directly. The electrically charged body would arc with the planet causing the comet to break up or explode in the atmosphere, the resulting arc would cause the cratering.
There is evidence that a comet exploded in the atmosphere some 12,000 years ago and this seems to be exactly what happened at Tunguska. It's also in line with what was observed with Shoemaker-Levy and the Deep Impact missions.
Further evidence can be seen in the craters of all the planets and moons, they are etched from the surface. This is why some have flat bottoms, sheer sides, no debris to account for them, why crater chains are so common and why there are litchenburg patterns of all sizes, it' how we can have some square and hexagonal shaped craters, it's why some small moons and asteroids have craters in them so large they should have been pulverized instead etc...

The model may not be complete or indeed 100%, but it certainly fits together nicely.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Yep daz, electrical equilibrium.
Even some asteroids have shown some temporary cometary activity, this is impossible under the dirty snowball model.


[edit on 26-9-2008 by squiz]


yes it's going a little of topic but that is cool.. least we are still on comets.. i quoted you on the asteroids showing cometary activity and would like to include the planet venus as showing cometary activity.. it has been spotted on soho a few times where venus has erupted with a tail..

i am curious what you think of the theory that the tails of comets is actually stuff coming into the comet and not stuff coming off the comet.

daz__



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


The "electric universe" theory has some things that I find very hard to link with my knowledge (both in theory and in practise) of electricity.

For something to make an arc, even in near vacuum, the difference in potential must be very high. In fact, after writing the previous sentence I got one more doubt, if near vacuum is a better electricity conductor than air would a large difference in potential create an arc or just a smaller discharge? But I will let that doubt for latter.


I think a small object approaching a much larger charged with an opposing charge would have its charge nullified by the stronger electrical charge before any arching could happen.

Also, if Tunguska was the result of some electrical discharge or arc, where are the common by-products of such a discharge, like large areas of molten everything (I was going to say rocks, but an arc can reach a temperature high enough to melt everything)?

Having worked some times with an arc welder I am used to see what happens in those conditions, and that is one of the things that makes me doubt that craters are the result of some electrical discharge.

Another thing, if there are objects inside the Solar System that have different charges, shouldn't they be attracted by those with the opposite charge and repelled by those with the same? I have never seen any reference of any object being repelled, only attracted.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
i just wanted to post this link to a short mpeg of venus going comet..
took me ages to find.. just so people know it is a real effect.. truly awsome to see..

mpeg Of Venus Going Comet

i also want to post a link to a 3 part document about the plasma discharge comet model...

Electric Comet Model

i also have a link to a radio show about electric charging in space and how it relates to electrical engineering..

jmc on electrical charging in space in relation to electrical engineering..

you will have to scroll to about half way through the one hour show to get to the meat..

peace

daz__



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I''l keep it brief because this is getting off track.



For something to make an arc, even in near vacuum, the difference in potential must be very high. In fact, after writing the previous sentence I got one more doubt, if near vacuum is a better electricity conductor than air would a large difference in potential create an arc or just a smaller discharge? But I will let that doubt for latter.



The near vacuum you speak of is the solar plasma, or solar wind if you prefer. Plasma is a natural electrical conductor. However I'm talking about an arc in the atmosphere, if that is not possible explain lightning.



I think a small object approaching a much larger charged with an opposing charge would have its charge nullified by the stronger electrical charge before any arching could happen.


Possible, the evidence from deep impact says otherwise.



Also, if Tunguska was the result of some electrical discharge or arc, where are the common by-products of such a discharge, like large areas of molten everything (I was going to say rocks, but an arc can reach a temperature high enough to melt everything)?


Likewise with standard impact theory. Funny when we are ultimately talking about dust made at extremely high temperatures.



Having worked some times with an arc welder I am used to see what happens in those conditions, and that is one of the things that makes me doubt that craters are the result of some electrical discharge.


I could show you some examples of craters created in the lab with electricity that perfectly replicate many of the attributes, but again it's getting off track. I can make em on my dusty computer monitor with static electricity and my finger
There really is a tonne of evidence for this, perhaps I'll do a thread.



Another thing, if there are objects inside the Solar System that have different charges, shouldn't they be attracted by those with the opposite charge and repelled by those with the same? I have never seen any reference of any object being repelled, only attracted.


The solar wind is the example your looking for. a hypothetical Ion drive would run on this principle. This does not mean gravity does not exist, gravity takes over when there is equilibrium. The separation occurs across the plasma double layer, a good example is the Earths magnetoshere and the Suns heliosphere. The cometary coma is also where this separation is happening in that case it's highly energetic and visible to the eye.

I'm no expert either, just a hobbiest really. Best ask a plasma physicist when it come to a universe made of plasma.


[edit on 27-9-2008 by squiz]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by daz__
 


Hey daz, I'm not familiar with the theory you mentioned never heard that before. Thanks for the links. Venus is a interesting oddball with cometary qualities. In PC/EU the Earth's magnetosphere and magnetotail is in effect the same thing that is going on with comets, you only get to see the plasma double layers when the are highly charged. So the lines do really blur when it comes to comets. Oh and not to mention Mira a star with a comets tail.
A fractal quality.

Even if the electric model is incomplete which it of course it will be to some extent, or it is wrong altogether. At the very least it is safe to say with the data from recent years that comets are NOT dirty snowballs formed in the hypothetical Oort cloud.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by squiz]




top topics



 
1

log in

join