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.

 

Comets Destroy Einstein's Nonsense

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


If you actually read the sources, it's kind of lame, cause they are basically filling in their views with holes formed by new discoveries that have not yet been confirmed to disqualify original theories.

Also, quasars go fast. They could easily be generating ergospheres countering their own gravity. This would explain it.

Also, gravity waves have been observed. But the tech is so new and has such large room for error that some, including sources articles, just assume that it was a negative read. Not true. Just the tech is not good enough to read it accurately. All signs so far point to it being true.


Also, the fact is that the range and magnitude of ejections for the sun make no sense to be electrical. Magnetic fields can only go so far, and it is really the strong core force that keeps stuff together. The fact is that ejections are seen to pull back in and that is only from intense gravity. And in addition, as far as I know, the way the sun generates poles basically shoots the electric sun theory in the head. If it was electrical and it was a magnetic based entity, then the poles would clearly be north and south. Instead its all fraked up with poles coming out everywhere. This is comparable to a shattered magnet at best, if it was electric.... which could only be held together by means of gravity and the current theory.




posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Long before NASA began the physical sampling of comets, their composition was known through the well-established, non-Einsteinian, terribly uncontroversial method of spectroscopy.

For example,


An analysis of the hydrogen Lyman-alpha data indicates that the water production rate of the comet was about 8 tons per second on April 4. A complementary set of observations of the OH radical using the Hubble Faint Object Spectrograph was analyzed in a self-consistent manner with the hydrogen observations and implies a water production rate of 7 tons per second. This represents good agreement given the expected uncertainties in the calibration of the two instruments and in model analysis parameters. Hubble Space Telescope Observations of Comet Hyakutake (1996 B2)

Hydroxyl plasma, anyone? Well, of course, the EU nuts have their own far-fetched explanation here:


In this model, electrical discharges strip negative oxygen ions from rocky minerals on the nucleus and accelerate the particles away from the comet in energetic jets. The negative ions then combine with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical...



And now look: A taxonomic survey of comet composition 1985-2004 using CCD spectroscopy Water, water everywhere.

A popular, easy to understand article: Scientists Gaining Clearer Picture of Comet Makeup and Origin Still more water.

Water in the most famous comet of all: Rocket observation of the ultraviolet spectrum of comet Halley

As the above demonstrates, the presence of water in many comets is established beyond doubt. But not in all of them; some comets have a different composition: The Composition of Dust in Jupiter-Family Comets as Inferred from Infrared Spectroscopy

Joseph Fraunhofer invented the spectroscope in 1814, sixty-five years before Einstein was born. Spectroscopy is used every day in labs around the world. So what has the composition of comets to do with Einstein? Absolutely nothing. But if comets do have water in them, then the Electric Universe believers have to admit their ideas are wrong.

Comets do contain water. End of discussion.

[edit on 8/5/10 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

No.
Qi was talking about gases. In spite of your attempt to twist his statement. He was also talking about production rates, not the column values.


Yes, water production more than tripled after impact. From Table 1:

Preimpact Total No. Molecules H2O: 588
Postimpact Total No. Molecules H2O (ord 26): 1042
Postimpact Total No. Molecules H2O (ord 27): 948
Postimpact Total No. Molecules H2O (Total): 1990
That's 3.4 times the preimpact level.


Preimpact production rate (Q) H2O: 1037
Postimpact production rate (Q) (ord 26): 1835
Postimpact production rate (Q) (ord 27): 1734
Postimpact production rate (Q) (Total): 3569
That's 3.4 times the preimpact level.

24 hours after impact both Total No. of Molecules and production rate were highly elevated over preimpact levels.

You can ignore the data all you want. That doesn't change the fact that comets contain a mixture of volatile compounds (mostly water) which outgas when heated by the Sun.

Those high temperatures bother you? Why did you ignore this part of the article?

A spectrum taken 0.6 s after impact, is shown in green.

A half second after a 10.3 km/s impact and the ejected material was hot. Imagine that. Yes, it was hot...duh.
deepimpact.umd.edu...

The material ejected after the impact was not. Please note (in Table 1 www.umsl.edu...), the temperatures found.

[edit on 5/8/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You are reading the table wrong buddy.

Those are snap shots

You can't add them up.

The fact of the matter is ALL the elements increased nearly equally, with a large increase in organics that was totally unexpected. The broad increase across all emissions is consistent with a homogeneous nucleus. - That is to say, there must be no water beneath the surface because there certainly isn't any on the surface.

There was no evidence of water ice beneath the surface. This has been admitted to in numerous press releases and papers so trying argue otherwise is to deny reality.


[edit on 8-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


No comet nucleus ever observed has had water on its surface.

None.

At best, one could claim that Tempel 1 had .5% of its surface as ice, but I personally think that's a stretch as well.

As for the recombination, I don't know what's so crazy about that idea since its based on lab experiments. This is a proven function of what happens in plasma discharge here on earth, so it seems quite logical to conclude it can happen in space the same way.

As for the standard theory, as I said, they are talking about ionized water, not "water"


Deep Impact saw absolutely no evidence for any ice on the surface of comet Tempel 1. At 56 °C (133 °F) on the sunlit side it was too hot for ices. However, it was reported that there's plenty of ice visible in Tempel 1's coma.

On viewing comet comas spectroscopically and observing the hydroxyl radical (OH), astronomers simply assume it to be a residue of water ice (H2O) broken down by the ultraviolet light of the Sun (photolysis). This assumption requires a reaction rate due to solar UV radiation beyond anything that can be demonstrated experimentally.

A report in Nature more than 25 years ago cast doubt on this mechanism. As Comet Tago-Sato-Kosaka moved away from the Sun, OH production fell twice as fast as that of H, and the ratio of OH:H production was lower than expected if H2O was dominant. The report concludes, “cometary scientists need to consider more carefully whether H2O-ice really does constitute a major fraction of comet nuclei.”

The mystery of ‘missing water’ is resolved electrically in the transaction between a negatively charged comet and the Sun. In this model, electrical discharges strip negative oxygen ions from rocky minerals on the nucleus and accelerate the particles away from the comet in energetic jets. The negative ions then combine with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical, neutral H2O and H2O+.

Alfvén and Gustav Arrhenius note, “The assumption of ices as important bonding materials in cometary nuclei rests in almost all cases on indirect evidence, specifically the observation of atomic hydrogen and hydroxyl radical in a vast cloud surrounding the comet, in some cases accompanied by observation of H20+ or neutral water molecules.” *

The abundance of silicates on comet nuclei, confirmed by infrared spectrometry, led the authors to cite experiments by Arrhenius and Andersen. By irradiating the common mineral, calcium aluminosilicate (anorthite), with protons in the 10 kilovolt range, the experiments “resulted in a substantial (~10 percent) yield of hydroxyl ion and also hydroxyl ion complexes [such as CaOH.]”

A good reason for the experiments was already in hand. Observations on the lunar surface reported by Hapke et al., and independently by Epstein and Taylor had “already demonstrated that such proton-assisted abstraction of oxygen (preferentially 016) from silicates is an active process in space, resulting in a flux of OH and related species.”

The authors note in addition that this removal of oxygen from particles of dust in the cometary coma could be much more efficient than on a solid surface with limited exposure to available protons: “The production of hydroxyl radicals and ions would in this case not be rate-limited by surface saturation to the same extent as on the Moon.”

The authors conclude: “These observations, although not negating the possible occurrence of water ice in cometary nuclei, point also to refractory sources of the actually observed hydrogen and hydroxyl.” Additionally, they note, solar protons as well as the products of their reaction with silicate oxygen would interact with any solid carbon and nitrogen compounds characteristic of carbonaceous chondrites to yield the volatile carbon and nitrogen radicals observed in comet comas.

*H Alfvén and Gustav Arrhenius, Evolution of the Solar System, NASA SP-345, 1976, p. 235.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

I'm not your buddy, buddy.

You can add them up because the water (not hydroxl) was detected in two spectral bands. You realize that the organics are volatiles right? You know, things that sublimate when heated? Things that contribute to the coma?

Yes, OH was found...as well as H2O.

OH observations conducted at the Nançay radio telescope provided a 4-month monitoring of the comet from March to July, followed by the observation of H2O with the Odin satellite from June to August 2005.

www.springerlink.com...

No water...right. No papers...right.

The Odin satellite also monitored nearly continuously the H2O line at 557 GHz during the 38 h following the impact on the 4th of July. Once possible periodic variations related to the nucleus rotation are removed, a small increase of outgassing related to the impact is present, which corresponds to the release of 5000±2000 tons of water. Two other bursts of activity were seen on 23 June and 7 July.

www.springerlink.com...


Taken together, these observations of the pre-impact surface strongly indicate that the water ice necessary to support the observed ambient outgassing of Tempel 1 must have shallow, sub-surface, sources.

ftp.astro.umd.edu...


Moreover, it is significant that the extent of this ice on Tempel 1’s surface is not sufficient to produce the abundance of water flux observed in the comet’s coma. The
Deep Impact team concludes that ‘‘there are sources of water from beneath the comet’s surface that supply the cometary coma as well.’’

iopscience.iop.org...


Ice in Ejecta: After the shocked vapor phase passes [1], ejecta mechanically excavated from the interior of the comet are observed (see Fig. 2). IR spectra reveal two components in these ejecta: bright dust and water ice. Water ice is detectable immediately (at 0.7 secs integration). The presence of water ice in the ejecta is, itself, an indication that
there was little to no chemical alteration due to the impact.

www.lpi.usra.edu...


The impactor succeeded in knocking a large crater in the nucleus, ejecting 1:5  1032 water molecules or 4:4  106 kg of H2O (Keller et al. 2005) and 106 kg of dust (Sugita et al. 2005). This should have exposed fresh material and yet, we observed no chemical changes. This can only lead to one of two conclusions: 1) The crater was not deep enough to penetrate the mantle to primitive material, i.e. the mantle is thicker than we had supposed; or 2) The cometary material on the outside of the nucleus is not altered signi cantly from the interior materials. Groussin et al. (2006) showed that the nucleus has very low thermal inertia. Thus, neither the diurnal heat wave or the heat wave from the extended passage into the inner solar system would penetrate deeply into the nucleus. This would leave pristine material near the nucleus. Thus, as we saw with our Keck data, the interior of the comet did not look substantially
di erent than the exterior layers and the outer layers must be very thin.

barolo.as.utexas.edu...

There is a lot of work about the water found in Tempel 1. How about some examples of papers saying there was "no water" found? I would be interested in seeing some.

[edit on 5/8/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


No buddy, you can't add the two.

Please keep arguing that you can though because anyone that knows better will assume you have no idea wtf you are talking about.

Now, I'm going to have to get a little technical here but bear with me as I point out what is going on here. OH is a daughter species of H2O and its absorbtion lines are assumed to be indicative of H2O. When scientists look at the abosrption bands, they aren't looking at "water", they are looking at absorbing bands of OH and applying a model that makes assumptions of them being indicative of H2O.

Here's a GALEX paper on Tempel 1 describing exactly what I'm talking about:
arxiv.org...


GALEX observations of comet 9P/Tempel 1 using the near ultraviolet (NUV) objective grism were made before, during and after the Deep Impact event that occurred on 2005 July 4 at 05:52:03 UT when a 370 kg NASA spacecraft was maneuvered into the path of the comet....The primary spectral features in this range include solar continuum scattered from cometary dust and emissions from OH and CS molecular bands centered near 3085 and 2575 °A, respectively...it is possible to derive production rates for the parent molecules of the species detected by GALEX in Tempel 1 and to determine the number of these molecules liberated by the impact.


The "parent" molecules they are talking about is H2O. The assumption is made that H2O is rapidly broken down into OH by "photodissociation" and this is where the OH absorption lines come from (of course, no laboratory has ever replicated this feat here on earth and ageed with the proposed timescales invovled in cometary photodissociation.)

As for the Spitzer and Kleck reports, those actually claim to be viewing H2O spectra, but this is again a complete misnomer. The reports of both of these findings are based on modeling assumptions. Looking at the actual Spitzer Ejecta spectra, the so-called water-ice and water-gas emssion bands are flat as a pancake. These micro-tiny bumps in the emission lines are ASSUMED to be water.

Spitzer says:

Water ice is present in low but detectable quantities (3% by surface area) in the SST spectra, as a broad feature at 10.5 to 15 mm. The spectral signature of water ice is attenuated and reddened as compared to those of the other ejecta solids, because the ice is at much lower temperatures than the rest of the dust. Thus, the water ice spectral signature is subtle and required detailed modeling to detect the shoulder longward of the strong 8- to 12-mm silicate emission peak.


"Required detailed modeling to detect" - ??????

"3% by surface area" - ????????


But lets move on to the Kleck report, which states:

Seven H2O spectral lines are seen in the residuals of (C) after subtraction of the cometary continuum convolved with the atmospheric transmittance
...
We derived effective global production rates from nucleus-centered fluxmeasurements (39 pixels) by adopting a standard coma model (a spherically symmetric coma with uniform outflow and steady production over the lifetime of the parent volatile) and applying standard analytical procedures (SOM text S6) (Table 1)

that is to say, they attempted to measure the spectrum of the comet by subtracting out the spectrum of our atmosphere, which is one source of error, and they derived the production rates of water and other elements using an assumed standard model of all comets, another source of error. They don't tell us what that model is nor do they list any references. I couldn't find anything specifying exactly how this model was setup.

The Kleck is a ground based obseravtory so any water spectra they get will be distorted because they are looking through the freaking atmosphere.

They then go on to say that obervations don't meet with the assumed model at all.


However, the rapid decrease in peak spectral intensity after UT 6:20 demonstrates that steady-state production was not achieved (red points, Fig. 1E). Therefore, these production rates should be interpreted solely as indicators of activity—the quantitative values are sensitive to model assumptions.


So the numbers regarding just how much H2O and other organics comprise the ejecta could be off by orders of magnitude, all this report really gives us definitvely is the increase and decrease respective to an arbitrary model baseline of the observed elements.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



There's a lot of evidence in support of this theory if you take the time to look at it.
Good. Now that's an expression of opinion. This post of yours is measured and still thought-provoking, plus you lists references.

UNLIKE your inflammatory thread title. Einstein's Nonsense? What gives you the right to even question something he mumbled in a dream? Tell me about your studies in theoretical physics.

What might've been a thread with a good discussion just comes off as angling for controversy, IMO. When Einstein's concepts, theories, ideas are challenged and he is found to be wrong or incomplete, that will be a person who has done just as Einstein did -- to compile valid ideas of the times and use them as a foundation for growth of humanity's knowlege.

I look forward to the unification of c and g, or even more important and paridigm-breaking, scrapping of the need for the forces alltogether, in favor of a superior description of dynamics. Some of Talbot's ideas, Bodanis, are fascinating, Alven, etc. Plasma cosmology may well be the new Einstein, however it will not be shuffled into the category of NONSENSE, any more than Einstein's work negated classic Newtonian physics.

....... and, it will damn well not be shuffled there by YOU.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


Einstein's work is pretty much nonsense.

As is evidenced by the numerous points listed here:

knol.google.com...#

There's not much left for it as a theory.

The removal of the medium light waves travel through has caused us all manner of chaos and lost time.

Einstein's theories will eventually be relegated to the dust bin of history along with Ptolemy's epicycles.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Yes. GALEX was using UV. Not a particularly good range for studying water. IR is much better. The paper isn't talking about water. Water wasn't their focus. They knew water was there, they were more interested in other things.

Yes. There was very little exposed ice on the surface of the comet. The surface was mostly dust. That's the point. The water found in the coma and after the impact came from below the surface.

Keck (not Kleck) is located on top of Mauna Kea, at 14,000 feet. It is there for a reason.

"Indicators of activity". Ok. Activity being an increase in water production. The water was there. But the figures are not far off the mark though in any case.

However, the total column number measured for water during the three time intervals was the same, suggesting that transient corrections to the steady production approximation are not large.


I thought you said there were reports of "no water" from Tempel 1. There was water found. Plenty of it. Not OH, H2O.

The water was there. You've made it clear that you are willing to ignore evidence which disputes your claims about comets containing no water or other volatiles. This has gone about as far as it can.


[edit on 5/8/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by smurfy

I wonder if there was a gaseous reaction between the Copper bullet and the hydrogen sulphide in that Comet, it almost begs the question that the bullet should have been made out of something else...like a a ??


There was no "gas" geyser, that's pure supposition on the part of the Keck research team.

What they saw were broad changes in the comet spectrum indicating a large increase in organics.

What they see as a light spectrum of water is not "water" as you think of it, its ionized water vapor with a color temperature of thousands degrees kelvin.

The standard theory of comets says that comets are made out of ice, with a dirty layer of rock covering them (which is ridiculous in itself), so what the research team was expecting from the impact was a huge increase in the spectrum of H2O coming from the comet.

They didn't see that.

Here's what they did see:

"Since the visible images have a higher spatial resolution, we use those images to calculate the extent of ice on Tempel 1's surface. That turns out to be a small fraction of the surface, only 0.5%. "

"What is significant is that the extent of this ice on Tempel 1's surface is not sufficient to produce the observed abundance of water and its by-products in the comet's coma. "

"Theories about the volatile layers (water ice) below the surface of short-period comets are going to have to be revised"

"All we needed was a factor of three boost from the impact to get a definite detection [of water ice beneath the surface]," said Qi. "We didn't see that."

"It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher," said SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). "The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven't materialized, at least not yet."

"There's a lot of structure on the comet, which is a bit surprising," Richardson said. "That could mean there's some strength to the comet."


[edit on 7-5-2010 by mnemeth1]


I never mentioned a gas geyser, what I was referring to was a possible, and accelerated, gaseous reaction to the Copper bullet and hydrogen sulphide in the Comet, that could give rise to some unknown effect or effects...like electricity, a battery effect perhaps.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
edit double post.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by smurfy]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


No, there was not "plenty of it" found.

Further, the surface basically had none on it.

Also, water can be detected in the UV and IR spectrum easily. In fact it blots out freaking everything. If water was present in any quantity its emission lines should stickout like a sore thumb.

It is CLEAR that the observed abundance of water that was ejected during the impact is NOT ENOUGH to validate any so-called dirty snowball model.

ALL observations from every freaking observatory and satellite prove this.

I have page after page of quotes from scientists showing that there is no way to possibly account for the "water" observed in the coma of the comet.

The OH in the coma is coming from no where.

FURTHER - SIMPLY LOOKING AT THE COMET IS ENOUGH TO THROW OUT THE SNOWBALL MODEL!

JUST LOOK AT IT FOR GOD SAKES!

ITS A FREAKING ROCK!

Are you going to tell me I'm too dumb to know what a rock looks like?



[edit on 8-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
LOOK AT IT

TELL ME THAT IS A SNOWBALL




I mean come on!

Do you have a bridge in Alaska you want to sell me as well?

Here's Wild2



IT A ROCK MAN!


FURTHER!

Do you know what the albedo of these things is? Its like just a touch above ZERO!

If you turned off your monitor, that's how freaking dark these things are. They are pitch black balls of ELECTRICALLY BURNED ORGANIC ROCK!

www.space.com...


Covered in a crust of blackness likened to the toner in a copy machine, a 5-mile-long potato-shaped comet called Borrelly has been found to be the darkest object in the solar system, scientists announced today.

The determination should help researchers learn what comets are made of, though one scientist said he can't figure how anything could be so dark.


I CAN! - ITS BURNED! - THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ELECTRICALLY BURN THE SURFACE OF SOMETHING! IT TURNS INTO A BLACK BALL OF CHARCOAL!
This is what their surface looks like in color!



In fact that sand is probably BRIGHTER! than a comets surface.

It turns out ALL the comets are pitch freaking black!

How could this be?

If they were made out of primordial BS that formed the planets, we should expect them to LOOK like little planets. Are any of the planets pitch black?

NO!

However all the freaking comets are pitch black because THEY ARE BURNED INTO A CHARCOAL CRISP BY ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES!


[edit on 8-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Lulin in the x-ray spectrum


Please tell me how in the living f#*$K a melting ball of ice produces violent x-ray emissions.

Please, tell me.

I'd love to know.

Magnetic fields magically reconnecting that are generated out of magically ionizing water that decide to wrap around a comet because they feel like it?

I mean what more does it take here?

If I shot a block of ice out into space, should we expect it to light up like a Christmas tree and emit xrays?!!????

WHY BOTHER WITH ROCKET FUEL!!! WE CAN USE ICE TO POWER SATELLITES!


[edit on 8-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


As for the recombination, I don't know what's so crazy about that idea since its based on lab experiments. This is a proven function of what happens in plasma discharge here on earth, so it seems quite logical to conclude it can happen in space the same way.

Consider the following simple calculation.

Average density of the solar wind at Earth orbit distance: 8.7 protons/cubic centimetre (P/cc). Source

(The actual value varies a lot; as I type this, Spaceweather says it's just 0.1 proton/cc, but let's stick with the average. Hell, let's raise it to ten protons/cc, which will help support your position and make my calculations easier. Also, the density increases nearer the sun.

Right: here goes.

Average solar wind density calculated at 10p/cc

Then, since each OH radical needs one proton to turn it into a water molecule, every cubic centimetre of solar wind can produce ten such molecules.

One mole = 6.022×10^23 molecules.

Therefore it would take 6.022x10^22cc of solar wind to produce a mole of water.

Molecular weight of water = 18.015amu. Therefore weight of a mole of water = roughly 18 grammes (18gm.)

According to the link in my earlier post, comet Hyakutake was observed emitting 7-8 tons of water per second on 4 April 1996, nine days after its closest approach to Earth and 26 days from perihelion (meaning it was still not too far away from Earth orbit and a figure of 10p/cc should be about right; )

Lets take the lower figure: 7 tons. That's 6.35 metric tons (tonnes): 6,350 kilogrammes or 6,350,000 grammes of water.

That works out to roughly 352,778 moles of water. (3.528x10^5)

If this water is the result of the recombination of OH ions with protons in the solar wind, as your preferred explanation of cometary water production claims, then the amount of solar wind needed to produce by recombination the water emitted per second by Hyakutake on 4 April 1996 would be a remarkable 21.245x10^28 cubic centimetres.

Or, to put it in more meaningful units, 21.245x10^13 cubic kilometres, or about 5.096x10^13 cubic miles.

Are you expecting us to believe that comet Hyakutake was passing through 50 trillion cubic miles of space per second?



Shall we do the maths and see how fast the comet would have to be moving to achieve that? Oh, come on, in for a penny, in for a pound...

Hyakutake was a small comet. Its nucleus was only about 2km in diameter. This gives it a diametric cross-section of area ~ 3.142 km^2. Let's be really generous and make that 4km^2. Hyakutake would therefore make a path through the solar wind that was a tube of diameter 4 square kilometres.

What would be the length of a tube of cross-sectional area 4km^2 that contained 21.245x10^13 cubic kilometres of volume? Simple: it would be this volume divided by the circular area of the comet's diametric cross-section. By this formula the length of the tube works out to 5.311x10^13km, or 3.3x10^13miles.

To produce by recombination the quantity of water that was observed pouring out of Hyakutake by Hubble, the comet would have to be travelling at about 33 trillion miles per second

The speed of light in space, as even an electric-universe enthusiast must have heard, is only 186,272 miles per second.

Still think proton-hydroxil recombination is a valid explanation for all that water?

[edit on 9/5/10 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
I must say mnemeth1 & Phage... Thus far, this has been an intriguing debate between the two of you. Not only are both your points well articulated; they have been extremely entertaining as well.

All in all, your discourse has made for a fantastic and memorable thread. Perhaps you guys should take this healthy debate to fight club?

Kudos to you both!

IRM


[edit on 9/5/10 by InfaRedMan]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
I must say mnemeth1 & Phage... Thus far, this has been an intriguing debate between the two of you. Not only are both your points well articulated; they have been extremely entertaining as well.


I completely agree. I wish they both would remove the emotion from the debate and move a little bit more deliberately in going point by point. Thus far, I would have to say that mnemeth1 is winning the debate. I find the whole subject extremely fascinating. I just watched Dr. Don Scott's presentation at Goddard.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

The surface had water, your own quote says so.

Water ice is present in low but detectable quantities

Are you changing your stance from "no water" to "some water" now? If water is detectable on the surface it is detectable as vapor. The amount of vapor can be determined.

I didn't say water cannot be detected in the UV band. I said that UV is not best suited for the detection of water, IR is better.

Your insistence that it is OH and not water vapor which is detected flies in the face of all evidence. Water is positively identified.

H2O itself was not definitively detected until its strong IR ro-vibrational emissions were measured by Mumma et al. (1986) in the coma of 1P/Halley during observations from the Kuiper Airborne Observatory, and later from the Vega flyby spacecraft (Combes et al., 1986). The water molecule was also directly detected in 1P/Halley using the neutral mass spectrometer on the Giotto spacecraft (Krankowsky et al., 1986). Non-resonance fluorescence emissions of water at IR wavelengths can now be used rather routinely to monitor water production rates in comets

www.lpi.usra.edu...

You continue to quote outdated information, ignore new data or lightly toss it aside, or insist that the scientists' analyses are incorrect. I'll ask you again for those published papers which say comets contain no water.

The low albedo of comets is consistent with the model (and observations) of a dusty crust. Go roll a snowball around in that black sand.

The xray emissions are explained here. They are produced by charge exchange, a process which occurs when the ions of the solar wind encounter the neutral atoms in the coma.
www.cfa.harvard.edu...
The effect has been recreated experimentally.

Physicists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have produced X-ray emissions in a laboratory setting by recreating the conditions that exist when solar winds collide with gases surrounding comets.

www.scienceblog.com...




[edit on 5/9/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Well that's not entirely true.

That assumes the solar wind is the sole supplier of hydrogen.

I think its safe to say comets are loaded with organics themselves, as they are planetary rock thrown into space. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume hydrogen ions are also supplied by the cometary body itself.

Also, you're not accounting for the possibility that comet ran into a dense CME cloud of ions.

Also, since magnetic fields are infinite, they will draw in charged ions from across the entire solar system.

I've yet to see a plausible explanation by standard theorists for why comets should have such intense magnetic fields in the first place.



[edit on 9-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join