I hope you're not talking about me...Originally Posted by Archer17
I hope you're not talking about me...Originally Posted by Archer17
I dought it- you don't seem very theatoningI hope you're not talking about me...
How 'bout if I use the evil faceOriginally Posted by mickal555
Very scary =D> =D>
nah. The scariest thing I know out of northeastern Ohio is Cleveland's Dawgs and their bark is worse than their bite. :wink:Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
Well, the Earth passed through the tail of Halley's Comet about a century ago. If the comet was made of anti-matter, so was its tail.Originally Posted by bmpbmp
And the Earth would be a very different place!
So, no, comets are not likely to be made of anti-matter.
Yes but is it even remotely possible that comets or this can cause a matter/anti-matter reaction.
There seems to be a few scientists who believe in comets being antimatter
I mean look at this article
Did you read the comments others have written about comets?
Things hit comets all the time. Comets hit things all the time. For example, the remains of Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Jupiter about 8 years ago, and comets are all the time crashing into the Sun. The effects of these collisions are what we would expect if a large lump of normal matter hit another large lump of normal matter at a high speed.
If comets were made of anti-matter, the effects of these collisions would be massively more spectacular.
And I mean massively.
Even small pieces of debris colliding with anti-matter comets would produce noticeable effects. We don't see these effects.
Thirdly, when Halley's Comet passed through the inner Solar System back in the late 1980s, a spacecraft called Giotto passed near the comet. It was battered by dusty material srrounding the comet. If that had been anti-matter, the Giotto spacecraft would have been destroyed by the amount of energy released in the impacts. Alternatively, if the dust had been normal matter, it would have been annihilated by the anti-matter in the comet.
Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any scenario we can come up with which makes sense if comets were made of anti-matter.
As for your article:
1. It doesn't mention comets; and
2. It doesn't mention anti-matter.
What gives you the idea that it suggests that scientists think comets are anti-matter? Did you actually read it? It was talking about Gamma Ray Bursts, which are something else altogether.
Now you're looking for remote possibilities to have something to worry about? #-oOriginally Posted by bmpbmp
If you want to worry about something, worry about your need to worry about something. You're gonna end up giving yourself an ulcer or worse if you don't get a handle on it.
Apart from that article being 12 years old (and GRBs are far better understood than they were then), where exactly did it imply that comets are made of anti-matter? In fact it spends quite some time stating that the GRBs are isotropic, which strongly implies that they are not local.Originally Posted by bmpbmp
bmpbmp - if comets are comprised of anti-matter, then the solar wind that is continually streaming past them would be a tad of a problem, no?
If you want something remote to worry about, bmpbmp, it's probably far more likely for you to die in a plane crash, while not being on any plane, than is likely for a comet to be made of antimatter.
Originally Posted by AGN FuelOk; let's streeeetttttcccchhhhh it and say those halo comets (being that they have not yet interacted with the galaxy) are AM (besides, no Neutron stars around here)... They Ain't near our solar system, and have virtually no chance of getting close. So yes, nothing to worry about. Where would they have come from anyway?Stirling Colgate, a senior fellow at Los Alamos and one of the first astrophysicists to correctly model supernovae, presented a study at the 1992 meeting of the American Astronomical Society suggesting that the bursts could arise from comets falling on neutron stars in a halo around the galaxy.
2 quotes on NASA TV that make me feel uneasy...
"we really donīt know what this comet has in store for us."
"we know so little about comets that we do not know what the nature of the impact will be..."
It'd be our luck that a small fast moving sneak asteroid hits it at the same time DI strikes it and NASA gets blamed for making it an Earth Crosser.
We don't know weather we are going to get a big crator, small crator, tube, no crator. Weather we are going to get organic compunds wheather we are going to see a brightening or what. That sotra uncertainty.Originally Posted by bmpbmp
Hey; bad analogy time... equate that with a free meal (like a wedding reception)Originally Posted by bmpbmp
2 questions on the reception that make me feel uneasy...
"we really donīt know what kind of meal they have in store for us."
"we know so little about thier tastes that we do not know what the nature of the toxicity will be..."
Would you worry about that meal?
Besides, if it were antimatter, it would be anhialated. So, again, nothing to worry about.
I would be thrilled if it was antimatter- what a site that would be!Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
The site wouldn't be there for long, but at that moment, what a sight the site would be.Originally Posted by mickal555
"By rocket to the moon. By airplane to the rocket, by taxi to the airport, by front door to the taxi. By throwing back the blanket, hanging down the legs."
-They Might Be Giants
Originally Posted by publiusr
I think it would be worse if the comet started puking gas jets when the impactor is almost on it, and the impactor decided that the width of the comet changed, thus setting a course correction right passed the comet. That would suck.
Maybe we could try that as another scientific test? Land a probe with a large chunk of antimatter onto a comet, then ram another impactor into it at very high speed. That would be soo cool.Originally Posted by mickal555
These kinds of statements are expected when we're moving into unknown territory. They are meant to convey the opportunity to learn something new, not to frighten or worry. If we already knew all there was about comets we wouldn't have sent the mission in the first place.Originally Posted by bmpbmp
We understand well enough that this little impactor is not going to change the course of Tempel 1 and, as others have posted, we have no evidence that it's made of antimatter or any other exotic material.
So sit back, relax and enjoy the show!
We could use our few billioths of a gram we have ever produced! :wink:
Deep impact would prove that comets are not made of antimatter though.
what about the electric universe theory
īElectric Cometī Could Burn
The House Of Science
By David Talbott
In 2005, a lot of reputations, multi-million dollar research projects, and scientific institutions--including NASA itself--will suffer catastrophically if the planned Deep Impact mission produces the "surprises" expected by Wallace Thornhill, a leading theorist of the electric comet hypothesis.
The Deep Impact craft was launched on Januray 12, 2005. Its target is an unprecedented encounter with the nucleus of a comet. NASA plans to fire an 820-pound copper "impactor" toward the nucleus of Comet Tempel I, and it is expected that the projectile will strike the surface at about 23,000 miles per hour. According to NASA scientists, the result should be a release of energy equivalent to that of exploding 4.8 tons of TNT, creating a deep crater. Fittingly, the scheduled date for the celestial fireworks is July 4, 2005.
But all of NASAīs expectations for the encounter are tied to current ideas about comets. The conventional view is that comets are inert chunks of ice and dust, or "dirty snowballs" evaporating in the heat of the Sun. The alternative view is that comets discharge ELECTRICALLY as they move through a radial electrical field of the Sun.
No middle ground between the two views seems possible, and if it happens that the Deep Impact projectile strikes a SOLID ROCK, the snowball theory of comets is finished. Mainstream theorists will be left without an explanation for a cometīs coma and tail.
While the electric universe model does not require that the nucleus of Tempel 1 be devoid of water, Thornhill and other advocates of the electric comet hypothesis think that a dry comet nucleus is most likely.
<snip snip about comet composition theories>
Models of water production from comets assume it is sublimating from the surface of the nucleus at a constant rate and expanding radially outward at constant velocity. But neither of these assumptions is supported by observations. The encounter with comet Wild 2 revealed that the removed material is confined to very thin jets. A principal investigator also spoke of energetic bursts "like a thunderbolt." The electrical model of cometary discharge explains the observations: an electric field accelerates matter in the jet; an electromagnetic "pinch effect" provides densities in the thin jets many orders of magnitude higher than those predicted from simple radial sublimation; and instabilities and fluctuations suddenly relocate jets in exceedingly short periods of time.
This model also explains a great number of other puzzles about recent comet discoveries. Why are comet nuclei coal black as if they have been burnt? If comet nuclei are merely sublimating in the Sunīs heat, why are they sharply cratered and rocky? They should be smooth like a melting scoop of ice cream? Why are the comet jets so narrow and energetic? Why do some comets sport an "anomalous" sunward spike? How can some comets produce sulfur compounds like those found in the electric jets of Jupiterīs moon Io that require very high temperatures?
Why is there a superabundance of extremely fine dust? Why does the presence of water molecules increase with distance from the nucleus - quite the reverse of what we should expect if water is driving dust off the comet? Why do coma temperatures reach 2 million degrees?
Often the events most disconcerting to conventional theory are the things most quickly forgotten. While moving between the orbits of Saturn and Uranus (14 times farther from the Sun than the Earth), Comet Halley experienced an outburst that caused dust to stretch over some 300,000 km. At that distance from the Sun, the surface should be in deep freeze at -200 degrees C. But it happened at a time when the Sun was at maximum activity. This does not mean that the Sun was producing significantly more heat but rather that there was a marked increase in the charged particles from the solar wind, fueling an energetic discharge from the negatively charged comet nucleus. The vast cloud of dust from the comet fits the electrical machining model, but not the "sublimating ices" model.
A direct confirmation of the electric connection came unwittingly from the Chandra X-ray Observatory on July 14, 2000. At that time, the Chandra telescope viewed the comet Linear repeatedly over a 2-hour period, detecting unexpected X-rays from oxygen and nitrogen ions in the coma of the comet. The capture of electrons from the negatively charged comet by positively charged hydrogen ions in the solar wind is, of course, nothing else than an electric discharge, natureīs highly efficient means of X-ray production.
It needs to be understood that a loss of faith in standard comet theory today would have drastic effects on all the theoretical sciences. It would change the picture of the universe from microcosm to macrocosm. An electric field sufficient to cause electrical discharging on a comet beyond the orbit of Saturn would have the electric potential to power the Sun. We could no longer ignore the cosmic electriciansī claims: They tell us that the Sun is not a nuclear furnace but an electric glow discharge; its nuclear reactions are occurring not in the interior but in the atmosphere of the Sun, where the intensity of the discharge is highest.
The electric comet will mean that all theories about the evolution of the solar system, including our earth, will have to be reconsidered from the ground up. The nebular hypothesis of planetary origins, claiming that the Sun and planets emerged gravitationally from a primordial cloud, will no longer maintain its intellectual monopoly. The fabled "Oort cloud," called upon to send comets into the inner solar system whenever theorists need them, will instantly lose its rationale. And no longer will it be permissible to assert that the planets have moved in clockwork fashion for billions of years. And even the accumulated evidence of electrical dramas and planetary upheaval in the HUMAN past will demand a reconsideration.
Thanks to the contributions of new and more powerful telescopes, it is now clear that electric events in our solar system have countless analogs in deep space, all pointing to the pervasive role of electricity in the heavens. Cosmological theories based on gravity will not survive the victory of the electric comet. We have good reason, therefore, to speak of a domino effect being unleashed, one that will set in motion one of the great revolutions in human thought and perception.
A. Electric universe theory is a crock.
B. Don't post massive chunks of text from another site. It's a copyright violation that could get you and the BA into serious legal trouble. Post a link along with a key excerpt or two.
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
sorry toseek I didn't realize that
what did he mean by this
"if we donīt get separation of the impactor, our back up plan is to fly both the flyby spacecraft and the impactor into the comet.
Well- if for some reason the part that smashes into the comet and the part that takes phot's don't seperate- they can alway's smash the lot into the comet and reliey on earth obsevation so the mission isn't a complete failure.
yes but wouldn't that cause a big explosion, to big
No.Originally Posted by bmpbmp
It would be like driving an entire car into the side of a mountain (the Flyby craft and the Impactor) or just tossing your bumper at the mountain (the Impactor). In either case, not much is going to happen to the mountain (comet).Originally Posted by 01101001
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)
All moderation in purple - The rules