Comets;Several lines of evidence revealing that comets are not the dirty snowballs you have been led to believe
Comet Lovejoy photographed by NASA astronaut Dan Burbank from the ISS. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
A short while ago a post about comets appeared on my feed authored by an amateur astronomer who just so happened to have a comet named after him. The post was well done, in-depth and informative of the standard model of comets so I upvoted it, even though I do not agree with the standard model, complimented him in the comments and questioned, respectfully, whether or not the standard model of comets needs reformulation due to some exceptional observations made since the model was first derived by Fred Whipple back in the old days of the 20th century. While he didn't out and out attack me, he did flag my comment as spam and then on his Fakebook account recounted the story where he did deride me and refer to the theories I favour as "hogwash". Such as it is, I hold no ill-will toward this person, in fact, I feel sorry for him. Dismissal without investigation is the epitome of ignorance and it is a shame this is the position he took for he is an intelligent individual and I had a genuine admiration of him, for it is not everyday one gets to converse with someone who has a comet named after them. His was an emotional response and such emotional attachment to scientific theories is tantamount to scientific heresy and not what I expected, though, honestly, I should have as it is not the first time one who proposes the standard model of science has shut a conversation down before it even has truly begun. It is as if they do not want to hear the evidence or discuss the divergent data for it may cause them to question their faith in the standard model. Such a reaction just goes to prove the Max Planck axiom regarding new scientific truths requiring old scientists to die off so that they can be taken up by the younger generation of scientists. Science and scientists suffer all the foibles of human nature.
In this post, I will present observations and commentary that should cause any open-minded individual to question the validity of the "dirty snowball" hypothesis of comets and provide evidence of the electric model of comets.
Comet 67P. Image taken by the Rosetta Spacecraft. Image courtesy of Wikipedia
Comet Tempel1, image taken by Deep Impact probe. Image courtesy of NASA
Comet Wild2. Image taken by Stardust. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Comet Hartley image taken by NASA's Epoxi mission spacecraft during a flyby. Image courtesy of Wikipedia
Four relatively up-close images of four different comets, while this is a small sampling size, it is still noteworthy that not a single comet has been observed with ice or snow on its surface and the first response of mission scientists was one of surprise as these images of rocky surface did not meet the prediction of the standard model. In fact, I challenge anyone to produce an up-close image of a comet with snow or ice on it. This empirical evidence is clue one that the standard model is incorrect.
"It's mind-boggling and stupendous. These pictures have told us that comet nuclei are far more complex than we ever imagined. They have rugged terrain, smooth rolling plain, deep fractures and very, very dark material."
~Dr Laurence Soderborn, Leader of SD1's imaging team
The lack of observational evidence of surface ice or snow did not deter the standard model theorists, they merely concluded that it must be present below the surface. One cannot begrudge such an ad hoc explanation for their spectral analysis of cometary comae reveal the presence of H2o therefore within the limited scope of their paradigm, water must be present and because it cannot be seen upon the surface, it must be beneath the surface because all surface water had been "baked off". When the first up-close images of Comet 67P were seen, mission scientists were confounded for what they found for surface features seemed more like planetary geology rather than the geology of accreted dust particles; sand dunes, wind streaked rocks, fields of boulders, mesas and a surface covered with stratified rock and complex bedding indistinguishable from similar rock formations on Earth defy the standard model and its predictions of a "dirty snowball", but interestingly, were predicted by the Electric Comet model.
"The (electric comet) model predicts a sculpted surface, distinguished by sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas and ridges.." ~ D.Talbott & W.Thornhill, July 3, 2004
This brought about the "Deep Impact" mission which was to impact a copper projectile on comet 67P which would then allow them to analyze subsurface comet material. Prior to the actual mission, David Talbott and Wal Thornhill of the Thunderbolt's Project had this to say.
"Electrical interactions with the approaching comet may be slight, but they should be measurable if NASA will look for them...The most obvious would be a flash shortly before impact."
"More energy will be released than expected because of the electrical contributions of the comet."~D.Talbott W.Thornhill, July 3, 2004
Images of impact taken with the medium resolution imager. Image courtesy of NASA
The predictions of Thornhill and Talbott came true as both a flash and an explosion was observed.
"What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there is a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose." ~ Peter Schultz, NASA Investigator
Nor did the impact produce the depth of crater expected as predicted by the "dirty snowball" model that claims comets accreted at the dawn of the development of the solar system some allegedly 4.5 billion years ago. The lack of depth clearly suggests a surface much harder than their model expected, as well, considering much more energy was released upon impact than they expected, one would have thought it a safe assumption that the crater produced would be deeper than expected. But it was not. In fact when one sees the crater produced it seems negligible at best as if it barely scratched the surface.
Before and after images of Tempel 1 being struck by Deep Impact's projectile. Yellow arrows indicate the location of impact. Image courtesy of NASA
This too produced an ad hoc explanation that if one were to consider it fully seems preposterous. Their explanation consisted of the shallowness being due to ejecta that fell back and filled the crater which seems to disregard the zero gravity environment this all took place in. Furthermore, the result of the spectral analysis of the ejecta also confounded scientists as little to no sub-surface water was present in the ejecta.
"The material that came out was a surprise to scientists; a cloud of fine powdery material emerged, not the water, ice and dirt that were expected." ~ Charles Qi, Astronomer
No snow, ice or water found on either the surface or within the sub-surface. And what of the vents that were alleged to allow for the escaping volatiles?
"It has proven difficult to identify specific landforms that can be identified as the 'vents' discussed for many decades in classical comet literature, as it is difficult to locate them on Borelly and Wild2." ~ P.C.Thomas et al, Journal Icarus
At every observed discovery, scientists are consistently confounded by the results as such results contradicted their predictions, and as such, should have brought rise to doubts concerning the hypothetical "dirty snowball" model proposed by Fred Whipple. They are unable to see alternatives due to what I call the limitations of their paradigm which states that space is electrically neutral. A concept believed by Lord Kelvin a century ago, which he used as evidence against the claims of Kristian Birkeland who posited "electric currents" in space. Electric currents which were proven many decades later in the 1960s and which are now known as 'Birkeland Currents'. More recent observations have revealed "flux ropes" and intense "magnetic fields" which again seem to confound scientists with their limited paradigm. Dismiss the century-old paradigm and introduce some basic knowledge of electricity and one can deduce the presence of "electric currents" for there are only two means of producing magnetic fields; one is with a dynamo, the second is via electric current. Lord Kelvin assumed the lack of presence of electric currents because, at the time, space was considered an empty void, but in the century since, we have learned that this is not so, especially within the solar system which is populated with plasma in the form of solar wind that produces the heliosphere that extends far beyond the planetoid Pluto.
There are a few more pieces of evidence I would like to offer in this attempt to disprove the 'dirty snowball' hypothesis that claims comets formed via accretion 4.5 billion years ago. The first is the result of an analysis done on collected samples of cometary material by the Stardust mission. Expecting to prove that comets formed in icy cold regions of space, they were instead confronted with results that revealed 'Anorthite' which is composed of calcium, sodium, silicon and aluminium, as well as, 'Diopside' which is composed of calcium, magnesium, and silicate. These compounds can only form at high temperatures of thousands of degrees.
"That's a big surprise. People thought comets would just be cold stuff that formed out...where things are very cold...It was kind of a shock to not just find one but several of these, which implies they are pretty common in the comet."
~Michael Zolensky, NASA curater
Add into this mix the discovery of molecular oxygen in the comet's so-called outgassing. If these were dirty snowball accretions from 4.5 billion years ago, molecular oxygen could not have survived that long. See the article, 'Dynamic molecular oxygen production in cometary comae published 08/05/2017 in Nature Communication.
Then there is also the instance of when comet 67P was observed with a tail, and therefore under the standard model, was sublimating ice more than 400,000,000 miles from the sun, or 16 AUs. It had already been determined that sublimation could not occur more than 3 AUs from the sun due to the temperature required to sublimate. And if that does not suffice then this gif of a comet passing through the corona of the sun might.
(
)
In this series of images, one can clearly see a comet passing close to the sun during its perihelion. The comet, in fact, passes within 150,000 km of the sun's surface placing it firmly within the corona which reaches temperatures in the millions of degrees. Upon exiting the corona on the other side of the sun, one can clearly see the comet's comae appear at its front. If this was a "dirty snowball" and that tail is the product of ice sublimating, please explain how that ice survived such temperatures that exist within the corona. Even if it was subsurface ice, an approximately eight-hour exposure to temperatures in the millions of degrees should have heated that comet to such a degree that any h2o remaining would have to be ensconced deep within the comet and incapable of producing a comae so quickly. This little clip should stand out as evidence that the 'dirty snowball' hypothesis is wrong, that there is something else entirely at work with comets.
What did Kristian Birkeland have to say regarding comets? From his book 'The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903'.
" The theory here set forth, of the emanation of electrical corpuscle-rays from the sun, might be thought to present a new point of departure in the study of the physical nature of comets, and more especially of comets' tails."
"As regards more especially the particular phenomenon of the comet's tail, it has been found that it does not make its appearance until the comet approaches the sun, and is most highly developed a little while after passing the perihelion. If, now, this vaporous envelope surrounding the more solid part of the nucleus, be exposed to the radiation of a multitude of corpuscle-rays from the sun, it could easily be imagined that in their passage through the exceedingly rarefied gas, these rays would change their nature. The simplest assumption one is inclined to make is that some of the corpuscles that pass through the coma have acquired an appendix of gaseous atoms or molecules, which have thereby become luminous. As these rays may be supposed to continue their way in more or less the same direction as before, but with a different velocity and mass, this would be a comparatively simple explanation of the luminous tail of the comet, which is almost always directed away from the sun."
"It is possible, however, that there are also other, just as natural, ways of looking at the matter. It might be imagined that after great heating by direct insolation, the comet is charged negatively by cathode-rays from the sun, and that the charging reaches so high a potential that the comet discharges itself electrically, so to speak in the direction of its own shadow. These discharges may also be imagined to be due to some extent to an emission of secondary rays from the cosmic dust of the comet. I have been led to this thought by experimental analogies which will be described farther on. Answering to the idea that a comet is an accumulation of carbonaceous cosmic dust almost without atmosphere, I have carried out experiments in which the cathode in a vacuum-tube consisted of a carbonaceous material. The most recent investigations of the comet-spectrum seem to indicate that the radiation from a cornet may be compared to that from a cathode in a Crookes ' tube (DESLANDRES, FOWLER)."
"It would be natural, therefore, to compare the above-mentioned layers that were favorable to the development of comet 's tails with the pencils of the strongest and magnetically stiffest corpuscle-rays which we imagine to emanate from the region surrounding the sun-spots, and which, when they sweep past our earth, produce powerful magnetic disturbances. It may be that it is these very rays, with their abundance of energy, that can charge the comet mass to a high negative tension, and thus occasion the secondary electric discharge from the comet into space.
"One circumstance that speaks strongly in favour of a hypothesis such as this, is the greater development thought to have been found in years of sun-spot maxima than in years of sun-spot minima. This has been demonstrated, for instance, in Encke 's comet, by BERBERICH and BOSLER, the latter having given an exceedingly interesting graphic representation of this condition, which is reproduced here. The agreement, as will be seen, is so striking that it seems to leave little room for doubt that we here have phenomena that must be intimately connected with one another."
Graph depicting a correlation between the brightness of Comet Encke with the number of sunspots from the book The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903'.
Kristian Birkeland has been referred to as 'The first Space Scientist' by authors Alv Egelund and W.J. Burke and it is a title of which he is worthy. His deductions which brought him ridicule in his day took six decades of technological advancement to be proven true. Birkeland achieved his experimental results by the use of a 'terrella', a magnetized globe in a vacuum chamber and a cathode ray where he simulated the sun, the rings of Saturn and many other, as yet unexplained astrophysical phenomena. In one such experiment, he projected electrons at a magnetized globe and observed them being directed to the poles where they formed rings of light, thus deducing the existence of electricity in space, to which Lord Kelvin stated erroneously was preposterous.
Other achievements by Birkeland include and are not limited to,
• Derived the general expression for the Poynting vector
• Gave the first general solution to Maxwell's equations
• Pioneered the field of charged-particle beams
• Constructed the first foil diodes
• Pioneered the field of visible-light photography of electrical discharges
• Advocated charged-particle propulsion engines for space travel
• Created Norsk Hydro's nitrogen-fertilizer industry (the Birkeland-Eyde method for
production of potassium nitrate)
• Invented an electromagnetic rail gun capable of firing a 10-kg projectile
• Anticipated cosmic rays (discovered in 1911) with his calculations involving energies of
several billion electron volts
• Held patents on the electromagnetic cannon, electric blankets, solid margarine, and
hearing aids.
Yes, Kristian Birkeland is who we should blame for solid margarine, nobody is perfect, though he did get nominated for the Nobel Prize seven times.
HOW WATER IS FORMED IN COMET TAILS.
So, while it is one thing to be able to dismiss a theory, it is another thing entirely to provide a new theory in its place, historically, it does seem to me that Kristian Birkeland was on the right track. There is no denying the spectral analysis which reveals the presence of water on comets, even though no water is found physically on comets. There must be an answer to this conundrum, is there a means by which water could be produced on a comet? Yes, there is and it is within the realm of a relatively ignored class of reactions called the 'Eley-Rideal' reactions.
Franklin Anariba PhD, a specialist in electrochemistry at Singapore University proposes that a process of electron stripping produces O2 & OH, as well as, other chemicals and releases it into the cometary comae. The discovery of an electron density in the vicinity of the nucleus of 67P can mean that O2 can absorb a negative charge through charge exchange followed by a protonation via the solar wind. Water formation can be via a series of pathways such as:
O2 + H =H2o
(O2-) + H+ = H2o
"The original chemistry mechanism is based on the seldom considered class of Eley-Rideal reactions which occur when fast-moving molecules, water, in this case, collide with surfaces and extract atoms residing there, forming new molecules. All necessary conditions for such reactions exist on comet 67P." ~ Konstantinos P Giapis
Resource-Wikipedia
Resource-Plasma-universe.com
Resource-Thunderbolt Project
Resource -Thunderbolt Project webpage
Resource -The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903'.
Thank you for reading.
There is much more that I can say about comets including arguments why they did not form 4.5 billion years ago but it would require another lengthy post and me delving deeply into the electric nature of the universe. Other posts by me on this subject that may be of interest to you.
https://steemit.com/science/@daemon-nice/is-modern-science-in-need-of-a-reformulation
https://steemit.com/science/@daemon-nice/first-five-of-the-top-ten-reasons-the-universe-is-electric
https://steemit.com/science/@daemon-nice/was-albert-einstein-wrong
If you would like to see more posts like these please feel free to follow me. leave an interesting comment or question and I will follow you.
Peace
#daemon-nice
...Not in agreement
Why I am disrespectful of you? Your very first action to me was to troll my article with the word's "Wow, you put a lot of work into this, too bad it is based entirely on antiquated theories that do not stand up to the observations." Do you understand now?
Kristian Birkeland died over a century ago and had no position on Electric Universe and the Standard model had not even been developed. Seriously, he passed in 1917.
Ah, well, I can give you that. I do admit I can come off a little over the top and for that, I do apologize. I wasn't meaning to "troll" as you perceived it, I should have been more tactful. Honestly, all I wanted to do is talk the science in a respectful manner and if my approach seemed not respectful to you, I am sorry. Thank you for finally sharing that with me thereby enabling me with the opportunity to make some amends.
But does that justify you flagging my post as spam? On your post, I have no issues per se with you shutting down the conversation, it is your post and in my opinion, as such you have that right. But to flag my post without reading and because you have a different opinion or because you were upset with me due to my insensitivity is not justified. Do you go about flagging as spam every post which contains opinions you do not agree with? I don't think you do, you have far better things to do. By flagging my post as spam you are in effect gagging me, denying my right to speak. That ain't right.
Kristian Birkeland did have plenty to say about the electric nature of comets and if you had read my post, you would know that to be so. Not only do I quote him and source the quotes but I show a graph correlating increased sunspot activity with increased brightness of comets that he published, thereby showing an electrical connection with comets via the solar wind and contesting the idea of the sublimating dirty snowball, while opening up the possibility of an electrochemical explanation of why H2o is observed via spectral analysis within the coma of a comet.
While the standard model had been set forth by Fred Whipple, he was not the first to propose ice/snow/water/volatiles on comets. Even Newton suggested something similar. And I never suggested Birkeland had anything to directly say about the Standard model, I said he was a proponent of the electric model and as such, in a backhanded way, is saying something about the standard model even though it wasn't developed in his time.
Again, I offer my sincere apologies if my initial comments upset you through my lack of tact. I only hope you can accept the apology and perhaps we can begin anew. As for the science of comets, I am far from done, as I feel the empirical observational data favours the electric model over the standard model. Rather than just flag my post, why don't you actually make an effort to read it and show me where, in your opinion, I am wrong? This I put to you as a friendly challenge.
To simplify it, I have three points of contention.
1-The dirty snowball model predicted the presence of snow/ice/water on comets. Can you show me a single photograph of a comet that shows the presence of snow/water/ice?
2-How can an alleged dirty snowball survive eight hours passing through the corona of the sun and then sublimate upon exiting the corona?(see gif in the above post)
3-Conversely, for a comet to sublimate and produce a coma, it must be within 3 AUs of the sun, yet 67P started producing a coma at 16AUs where it is not warm enough to initiate sublimation.
How is this possible in the standard model?
A hypothesis is only as good as its ability to predict and is either supported or falsified by the empirical observations. And as it stands, the dirty snowball hypothesis has not been supported by the empirical observations. How many times must a model's predictions fail before a model is dismissed?
Respectfully yours
#daemon-nice
Ice in comets. Direct and indirect, massive amounts of evidence. But if you must have a photo. http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/59705-water-ice-in-imhotep-region/
2011 W3 was an unusual comet with very few volatiles, it only brightened when it got close to the sun. Similiar comets C/2012 E2 and C/2012 S1 in similiar sungrazing orbits appeared to be normal comets away from the sun and did not survive. I can pull up light curves for these comet's if you don't believe me. Btw how did you calculate your ablation rates?
No CO outgassing can drive activity out to 30AU
Thank you for your input.
What I also find interesting is how they backtracked a photographic timeline from a 'dust plume' to find this in the same locale. Notice they say dust plume and not a vapor plume. Are they trying to say water is stripped off as 'dust'? In my post, I do not deny the presence of h2o in the coma and this small volume could be the product of an electrochemical reaction(for which all the conditions necessary are present) that eventually was stripped away. You keep saying there is massive amounts of evidence, of that I do not doubt, but there does not seem to be massive amounts of actual h20 or any significant amount that one would imagine should be required to support the 'dirty snowball' hypothesis. Considering the length of a comet tail, should there not be much more significant volumes of h20?
2.it is the unusual phenomena that bring cause to question. What kind of volatile can resist the extreme temperatures of the corona to produce a coma upon exiting the corona? That is the real question. The last couple of frames in the gif reveal a coma bursting forth ahead of the comet. Based on the fact that 'normal comets' do not survive such close encounters with the sun, I suspect not all comets are made of the same material suggesting that they are not all formed in the same manner.
In this graph published by Birkeland, he shows a correlation between sunspot activity and comet brightness. The lower curve represents the number of sunspots while the upper curve represents the brightness variations of comet Encke. This is highly indicative of an energetic relationship between the sun and comets. How does the dirty snowball hypothesis explain this?
Again I thank you for entertaining this conversation. It means a great deal to me to converse with someone who questions the model I favour for talking with other like minds feel like a group singalong rather than an intelligent critical conversation. My mind is open to opposing opinions, as well, it challenges me.
Water ice in comets: Infrared/Microwave spectroscopes on a number of the spacecraft sent to comets all show large amounts of CO2 and H2O in the vicinity of the nucleus. Look for results for the Microwave instrument aboard Rosetta, and the infrared spectrograph aboard EPOXI. Production rates of water byproducts like OH- have been monitored for decades in various parts of the spectrum (but you appear to be more interested in direct proof of a H2O parent, so for that we need to look at spacecraft observations).
Comet Encke and sunspots : I am a bit dubious of the graph and I'll tell you why (Birkland was brilliant, but not infallible). If that chart were the brightness of Comet Encke, it would show a very dramatic peak every 3.3 years coinciding with it's perihelion. During the 1800's Comet Encke was really only observed for a window of 2 months around perihelion, and any time outside it would be invisible. Since Birkland's time we have access to far more observations and more accurate observations and I haven't heard of any correlation. However, feel free to do your own data analysis, there is a good modern database of comet observations here. Keep in mind that comet brightness observations are notoriously difficult and there can be a lot of scatter, particularly between different observers.
Those readings in the vicinity of the nucleus could be the product of an electrochemical process which would be most active on the nose of the nucleus where solar wind(sheet current) is in greatest contact. Of the four comets that I am aware of that they have gotten close to there seems to be very little to no presence of water. The fact that there is this discrepancy between what we can see in the visual light range and what the sensors are reading suggest that there is something more to this. We agree that there is the presence of water, what we do not agree on is how that water is present. You insist on snow or ice, even though the images do not show any. Oh yes, it is subsurface, but even then from what I can ascertain, there was none observed by sensors or otherwise when they impacted a projectile and analyzed the ejecta. While I insist it is being produced via electrochemical process stripping atoms off the rock.
True enough about the brightness being difficult to measure and compare. Thanks for the link, I will check it out and given enough time may even link up a database on sunspots and graph the two together for comparison. A single comet clearly does not define all comets. But I do think Birkeland was on to something there.
How sad for you that this is how you respond. So, to be clear, seven-time Nobel nominee Kristian Birkeland is nonsense.
It is interesting to note that all I wanted to do was start a conversation with you and you, your response is to treat me disrespectfully. Am I a threat to you that this is how you act? Clearly, that is how you feel and I do not know why you feel so. Did you even read it? I doubt it which would make yours an entirely emotional response and not an intellectual one.
Buen post @daemon-nice ^_^