Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Star Water and Life in the Universe - An Electric Universe theory confirmed?

page: 1
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
A big discovery was recently made and data and observation have put to bed one hotly debated issue, not only on these boards, but across the world. The new discovery on how the Solar wind interacts with rocky bodies has deep implications for our understanding of the universe, comets, the possibility of life in other systems, and most importantly provides the proof for subtle interactions between the solar wind and rocky bodies that previously were believed to be impossible due to the particles "Moving impossibly fast to be captured by and interact with stellar bodies." as one person on ATS put it.


Significance

Whether water is produced by solar wind (SW) radiolysis has been debated for more than four decades. In this paper, we exploit the high spatial resolution of electron microscopy and sensitivity of valence electron energy-loss spectroscopy to detect water (liquid or vapor) in vesicles within (SW-produced) space-weathered rims on interplanetary dust particle (IDP) surfaces. Water in the rims has implications for the origin of water on airless bodies like the Moon and asteroids, the delivery of water to the surfaces of terrestrial planets, and the production of water in other astrophysical environments. In particular, water and organic carbon were likely delivered simultaneously by the high flux of IDPs accreted by the early Earth and other terrestrial planets.


The article by John P. Bradley, Hope A. Ishii and other geophysics professionals opens the door for many yet to be confirmed processes that are thought to take place in electrical neutral environments between individual charged particles.

The Article Detection of Solar Wind produced water in silicates. provides the scientific evidence needed to expand upon ideas that have been speculated about for the last 40 years in alternative Science rings. (You will need a subscription to view the entire document.)


The solar wind (SW), composed of predominantly ∼1-keV H+ ions, produces amorphous rims up to ∼150 nm thick on the surfaces of minerals exposed in space. Silicates with amorphous rims are observed on interplanetary dust particles and on lunar and asteroid soil regolith grains. Implanted H+ may react with oxygen in the minerals to form trace amounts of hydroxyl (−OH) and/or water (H2O). Previous studies have detected hydroxyl in lunar soils, but its chemical state, physical location in the soils, and source(s) are debated. If −OH or H2O is generated in rims on silicate grains, there are important implications for the origins of water in the solar system and other astrophysical environments. By exploiting the high spatial resolution of transmission electron microscopy and valence electron energy-loss spectroscopy, we detect water sealed in vesicles within amorphous rims produced by SW irradiation of silicate mineral grains on the exterior surfaces of interplanetary dust particles. Our findings establish that water is a byproduct of SW space weathering. We conclude, on the basis of the pervasiveness of the SW and silicate materials, that the production of radiolytic SW water on airless bodies is a ubiquitous process throughout the solar system.


So why does this matter? Well besides abstract implications for the famed "Drake Equation" it changes our very idea about life in the universe. It has huge implications for comets and sheds doubt on previously steadfast ideas about the galactic web, which has been in the lime light with the recent articles. Can we really be so sure the connections that we see between galaxies are simply "illuminated" or are the detectable magnetic fields hinting at more subtule interactions long held to be impossible now exposed by this information?

As much as I enjoy reading large amounts of text, I do prefer a good video, especially when they are already out there and do a better job of explaining the relevance of a topic with pretty visuals and engaging narrators.

DailyBroadcast for 1-22-2014 about the article


The videos themselves have been re-posted to other youtube pages I am actively checking into copyright violations and will remove these videos if found to be violating copyright law or if requested to do so, or at moderator discretion
edit on 22-1-2014 by vind21 because: Minor Changes
edit on 1-23-2014 by Springer because: Video embeds removed per ATS member vind21 and copyright owner's request.




posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Silicates are rich in oxygen. The sun radiates H, which collides with silicates (in the form of dust and/or asteroids), and combines to form H2O. This provides a via mechanism to explain the water content not only on earth but pretty much every other body we have data for.

That makes total sense. Personally I've never been a fan of comets bringing most, if not all of the water to early Earth.

What doesn't makes sense, is the OP associating this with nonsensical electric universe ideas. The two are not related.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Oh yeah... what's 'star water', as used in the heading, and how does it differ from 'water'?

Other than that, interesting post on an interesting study!



edit on 22-1-2014 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
You are making light of many very heated debates on this topic on these boards and else where. This process has been denied as being possible in many threads about comets and particle interaction over the years.

The relation to EU should be pretty clear if you have a decent background in the ideas put forth in the theory.

Im not saying that EU in all cases is some how proven to be correct, but one of the major processes that EU theory relies on has now been shown to in fact take place, whereas before, it was one of the primary points used to disprove a large number of EU concepts before they were even considered. As far as I know the only people who have been working on this idea outside of this study are EU proponents, which is why there are already several speculative videos on the process by them, the speculation has now found to be accurate, if you don't want to consider the EU side of the information, no problem, but for those of us that follow other ideas besides just the same plain jane standard theory this is a nice find from a legitimate source that removes a large barrier and a major point of refutation for the exploration the ideas in EU.

That is why for many of us, this is a really significant paper. The idea that water is generated by stars has been known for sometime but proving that weakly interacting particles can generate vast amounts of water where none existed before should not be taken lightly.

Star Water: Is a term that refers to water generated by electrochemical interactions between stars and their environment. It is also a widely used term from many articles that talk about water and hydroxial when referring to non-terrestrial water. The term is quite well explained in the videos.

I do understand your point and I'd rather this be about the information and less about how it pertains to EU but I don;t see how you can not go in that direction if the topic interests you, as such I will change the title of the thread slightly to promote better conversation and to be less....expletive

Glad you enjoyed the information.
edit on 22-1-2014 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Ok, I can accept the genuine scientific research into this, and results it brings. But why should we listen to Ben Davidson? Who is he?

Juris Doctorate – Capital University Law School 2011
BA Economics – Denison University 2006-2008
Econ/Meteorology – Penn State University (Schreyer Honors) 2003-2005

I am not a scientist, I am classically trained in economics and law, but have worked professionally in the investment field, primarily in a due diligence capacity. Turns out this has had some good implications for what I am trying to do on YouTube and here on this website.

www.suspicious0bservers.org...

He also accepts donations. I think that's enough said.


I'd rather refer to genuine scientific articles: www.newscientist.com...
edit on 22-1-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Sleeper's thread on the stars giving birth to planets wasnt as crazy as people think. The sun is the Mother to the Solar System, and all elements, including water, come from the Stars. They even have evidence of stars shooting out jets of water yet persist in lying about the dirty snowball comets....



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Unity_99
They even have evidence of stars shooting out jets of water yet persist in lying about the dirty snowball comets....

How does water production by stars preclude comets from containing ices?



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 


Very interesting stuff. SO gets a big upgrade in my book.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

wildespace
Ok, I can accept the genuine scientific research into this, and results it brings. But why should we listen to Ben Davidson? Who is he?

Juris Doctorate – Capital University Law School 2011
BA Economics – Denison University 2006-2008
Econ/Meteorology – Penn State University (Schreyer Honors) 2003-2005

I am not a scientist, I am classically trained in economics and law, but have worked professionally in the investment field, primarily in a due diligence capacity. Turns out this has had some good implications for what I am trying to do on YouTube and here on this website.

www.suspicious0bservers.org...

He also accepts donations. I think that's enough said.


I'd rather refer to genuine scientific articles: www.newscientist.com...
edit on 22-1-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



Thanks for the scientific vet there Wild and the accompanying article.

As far as S0, or Ben, is concerned he provides regular weather forecasts and a daily youtube production that is up by 6am eastern nearly 365 days a year. He also has a website that not only accepts donations but has a pay to view section of content, of which I am suspicious these videos come from, which is why I included the blurb at the bottom of the original post about copyright protection and did my due diligence and contacted S0 for permission to use them. I have not yet received a reply an assume "fair use" until I am informed otherwise or you tube removes the videos. The topic is the paper, the videos are providing a background understanding.

I do not have any personal issues with him charging for content or asking for donations as the videos he produces certainly do take time and I value them over the forecast I get from my local news, a service that he provides for free. He also provides free subscriptions via donations to people who have a hard time paying the outrageous 2$ a month fee


Significant effort to cite all sources used in his videos is regular and in this case the videos here were produced long before the information in the scientific article was available and is referencing many papers released over the years, the results were still deemed "absurd" at the time but this new paper confirms that the process described in Star Water are certainly going on. I think that gives it a degree of credibility. He is simply providing the best interpretation of facts that he can and putting it in a video, these videos, contain more of his opinion and speculation than his daily cast. Take it for what you will, as I have said when I posted things from his daily casts previously. He's not really trying to tell you anything you couldn't read and infer for yourself from public information.

Either way the meat is in the paper, not the videos, the videos explain the concept and relevance to people who may be having a hard time inferring it from the article alone as many people will not have access to the scientific paper.
edit on 22-1-2014 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


Up close personal observation has confirmed that comets are very clean, very much like asteroids but cleaner due to electrical processes, contain little or no ice in many cases, and emit X rays, all those findings already predicted by EU experts and all of them blew holes in the conventional theories.

Now, in the conventional "ice ball" comet theories, the reason they promote this lie even when they themselves have found out otherwise up close with their space crafts, is because they claim the oceans of earth occurred by dirty ice ball comets hitting the planet over time and adding oceans.....

In other words, this is a cornerstone theory to a pile of their other lies.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Then please explain the observed spectra from comets.

And if you think the spectra themselves are the product of some barmy conspiracy, do you realise that amateur astronomers can (and do) build their own spectrographs to confirm this?

Or perhaps the entire science of chemistry is wrong too...



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 


Great thread. This is something I have understood for some time now yet have been wresteling with the contradictions with the standard, mainstream, theories. I feel that the implications here are profound.


MarsIsRed
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Then please explain the observed spectra from comets.

If I may…

In the videos, and the paper, is presented evidence of hydroxyl which is a product of H+ in the solar wind interacting with oxygen. Positively charged hydrogen ions come from the Sun and interact with oxygen to create hydroxyl (-OH) and then water (H2O). Hydroxyl has been detected in comet tails which is a product of this interaction and is electrical in nature.

The hydroxyl (-OH) is not necessarily evidence of water in comets but evidence of an electrical interaction between the comet body and the solar wind, i.e. the solar wind delivering H+ and interacting with O from the comet nucleus creating -HO. In any case the evidence of hydroxyl is evidence of an electrical interaction.

Furthermore, if you don’t like the term “Electric Universe”, or its wild, speculative theories, than I would suggest reading up on Plasma Cosmology. Perhaps research names like; Kristian Olaf Birkeland, Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén, Anthony L. Peratt or Donald Scott. The last two are alive and well so they are still publishing work. I have been waiting for Peratt’s book, Physics of the plasma universe, to come out for quite some time now. Donald Scott has an interesting video out.


Plasma Physics' Answers to the New Cosmological Questions by Dr. Donald E. Scott.
edit on 1/22/2014 by Devino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MarsIsRed
 



The Electric Comet | Full Documentary

This is one of the best, going to bring out the findings of the probe that was sent out, and the scientific findings.

This goes straight into the findings:


1/6 Comets - Not What We Expected

sites.google.com...


The deep impact mission, which sent a probe out to impact comet Tempel 1, found the following:

1. The copper impactor generated such an energetic explosion that the primary mission sensors were swamped and the primary mission of photographing the crater was unable to be carried out. (Such a flash would be expected with a metal object approaching a highly charged object)

"We didn't expect the success of one part of the mission (bright dust cloud) to affect a second part (seeing the resultant crater). But that is part of the fun of science, to meet with the unexpected. "


Physicist Wal Thornhill commenting:

"It is now well documented that every scientist associated with the project was stunned by the scale of the energetic outburst. These scientists understood the kinetics of impact, and they all agreed that the explosion would be equivalent to 4.8 tons of TNT. That’s a good-sized bomb, but not even close to what occurred."

....


"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," 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."

Some more:

"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."

...


A space telescope that usually studies the most powerful explosions in the universe has set its sights on an approaching comet. Its observations at ultraviolet and X-ray wavelengths should help reveal the comet's composition and 3D structure.

X-ray emissions? That's quite the snowball. I didn't know melting ice was capable of producing x-ray emissions violent enough to be studied by x-ray telescopes. I guess we can stop going to hospitals for x-rays and just pick up some ice from the local gas station now.

An image of comet Lulin in the x-ray spectrum:


The comet is electric. And is nothing like old school science theorized!

Further, in Electric Universe, if a planet starts to move, it becomes a comet, grows a tail too! Like the stories of Venus of old.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MarsIsRed
 


Gave you a star but disagree with:



nonsensical electric universe ideas


Almost none of it is nonsensical (it makes sense in the frame that it is included), some ideas are a bit out there but others seem to be good contenders to explaining several issues. For example the electric comet video I've seen posted here on ATS provided better theories than the unknowns or unverified realization of the standard model.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 


It is clear that the hydroxyls are formed due to mechanical collisions between electrically charged particles and molecules, not mysterious electromagnetic fields.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Mechanical Collisions.......

We are talking about a low density plasma stream of ions, colliding into material, in this case silicates, and bonding to form new molecules are you saying no electrochemical interaction takes place?

By mechanical collision are you implying that energy is conserved in the form of heat alone, not by release and trading electrons during chemical bonds?

Smashing dust and rocks just give us dusty rocks...not water.

I don't think the processes are so mysterious, now I figured this thread would turn bring out a lot of EU videos. It hopefully will not degrade into another comet thread.


But Im going to enjoy it for what it is, a discovery that means a lot in terms of habital planets, and space travel. If we understand enough about space, maybe we will start to see it as less baron and insurmountable. Think about the implications for space travel if you could harvest water during flight because we understand ways to generate it from plasma fields. That is a possibility now.





edit on 22-1-2014 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 



We are talking about a low density plasma stream of ions, colliding into material, in this case silicates, and bonding to form new molecules are you saying no electrochemical interaction takes place?


No. Obviously an electrical bonding occurs, but it is due to the physical collision of charged particles with ionized matter that happens to be in the way. The silicates are not calling out to the particles over large distances through the medium of a field they are generated.


By mechanical collision are you implying that energy is conserved in the form of heat alone, not by release and trading electrons during chemical bonds?


Once again, particles with the same charge as ionized matter in a meteoroid or cometoid will be repelled, particles with the opposite charge can form a bond if they come into contact. This is entirely a passive process from the point of view of the silicate matter.


Smashing dust and rocks just give us dusty rocks...not water.


Correct, but combining radicals and ions can form molecules. No mysterious electromagnetic field generated by inert bodies are necessary. This experiment does not support EU at all. It merely shows chemistry at work under conditions different than normally observed on Earth.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 



But Im going to enjoy it for what it is, a discovery that means a lot in terms of habital planets, and space travel. If we understand enough about space, maybe we will start to see it as less baron and insurmountable. Think about the implications for space travel if you could harvest water during flight because we understand ways to generate it from plasma fields. That is a possibility now.


You would still need to bring the raw materials, or gather them up from vast volumes of space.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


While i agree that it seems a bit suspect on the motivation side, lets not let who he is drown out what he is saying. Thats like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by vind21
 



But Im going to enjoy it for what it is, a discovery that means a lot in terms of habital planets, and space travel. If we understand enough about space, maybe we will start to see it as less baron and insurmountable. Think about the implications for space travel if you could harvest water during flight because we understand ways to generate it from plasma fields. That is a possibility now.


You would still need to bring the raw materials, or gather them up from vast volumes of space.


Much respect for responding to the science and the speculation separately


I would suggest that an ample supply of oxygen with a small silicate base could potentially get the job done when exposed to the solar wind, not requiring tons of rocks. I would suggest that no silicate is required at all.

Think about how this works in the solar system, you have a near vacuum density of ions hitting very dense or massive objects, you can produce certain chemical compounds naturally and quickly form this interaction. If you could use some of my mysterious magnetic fields as you put them I wonder what kind of production you could get from super cooled and dense oxygen....

Would the density or temperature even matter, I think so but I certainly don't know to what degree it would be viable.
edit on 22-1-2014 by vind21 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join