Stardust

[kashi]

Stardust

Let the posting (or in damienpaul's case flooding) begin!

[damienpaul]

happy to oblige!

What do people think that this probe will yield??

[VanderL]

There's also a thread in Story Comments.
I think this probe will yield confusing data , nothing that fits theory will be learned of the history of the solar system, and we can see in the beautiful image that we are left with more questions than answers.
Very interesting though, more data!
Cheers.

[damienpaul]

what type of data are people expecting?

[Victoria]

Quality

[damienpaul]

will they find an amino acid or two

[VanderL]

What about short-lived isotopes, are they expected? If not, great, I'm betting they will be among the Stardust stuff.
Cheers.

[Spacemad]

It will be very interesting to see just what particles the probe actually managed to catch.

It was great news when we heard that it had come thru with flying colours!
I, personally, can't wait to hear what data the scientists manage to extract from this mission. Will they really discover something really new about how our Solar Sysem formed? Will they find anything to indicate that comets may have sown the "seeds" of live on our world??????? So many questions - so few answers!

[VanderL]

It's been awhile since news was released about the Stardust mission, but there were several articles in Nature this week. Of course I had to select the electrically viewed comments on the findings (Hi Tim ), but if you're interested, or want to shoot Thornhill's comments down, be my guest.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=uf4ty065

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by VanderL@Jul 22 2004, 05:42 PM
It's been awhile since news was released about the Stardust mission...

Stardust will do its sample return in 542 days. Until then, there is not too much to say.
You can see the website here for more info: Stardust

I took a look through the web-site you pointed us to. It seems to mostly be saying that the Articles about the Stardust mission in Nature are all wrong. It seems to be written by a bunch of Electric Universe types, and they have some Wild opinions about this comet.

[VanderL]

Stardust will do its sample return in 542 days. Until then, there is not too much to say.

Well, actually no, there are already a lot of data that can be studied. As an aside, don't get your hopes up too high for the results of the returned dust. It could give us more questions than answers.

I took a look through the web-site you pointed us to. It seems to mostly be saying that the Articles about the Stardust mission in Nature are all wrong. It seems to be written by a bunch of Electric Universe types, and they have some Wild opinions about this comet.

Not quite.
True, they have a wild theory, but the Nature article is not claimed to be all wrong. Thornhill merely expands on the surprises that the authors express themselves.

1. Much more surface structure than can be expected from a "dirty snowball" kept together by ices.
2. No jet-activity from crater floors
3. Highly collimated jets at relatively great distances
4. Most (or all) jets can be found at subsolar location

You can disagree with his (Thornhill's) interpretation, but the authors of the articles are the ones who report surprise, and have resorted to unlikely explanations for some of the findings.

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by VanderL@Jul 22 2004, 07:45 PM
It could give us more questions than answers.

That's what I'm hoping for: Some answers, lots of questions.

[VanderL]

Hi Antoniseb,

Nice to hear that you would like some answers any many more questions, but I would settle for some answers first (just my impatience I guess).
I think that the dust particles collected from comet Wild2 will give us new, detailed information, but it must be fitted into a coherent picture. We already have images of the surface, jets and information on the blasts of particles.
We won't get information on how the jets are actually generated from the collected dust, I think. That's where the actual pictures of the jets are needed. I still have the idea that surface heating by solar radiation is insufficient to generate these extremely strong and highly collimated "beams" of particles. I would like to know if the "wild ideas" are really wrong, or that the jets can really be seen as an electric discharge phenomenon. To answer that we need a close look at where and how the jets are produced and compare that to the two different models.
As far as I can tell, the evidence could just as well have an electric explanation, because I haven't read about confirmation that the jets are the result of surface heating (could be I haven't looked hard enough, so any information I missed is welcome).

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

I'm not privy to any extra information than you are, but the geyser 'Old Faithful' looks fairly collimated when it shoots out of the ground in Yellowstone park. This collimation is not electrical, it comes from a fast stream being shot out of a small hole.

Also, the dust will be made of something. It the dust is not made of materials strongly susceptible to magnetic or static electric fields, that will say something about the electric model and comets.

[VanderL]

I'm not privy to any extra information than you are, but the geyser 'Old Faithful' looks fairly collimated when it shoots out of the ground in Yellowstone park. This collimation is not electrical, it comes from a fast stream being shot out of a small hole.

You're joking, right?
Maybe comet Wild2 has a magma chamber hidden from view just like "Old Faithful" :blink:

I'm not sure exactly where Stardust was when the particles hit, but I estimate the "beam" was several hundreds of meters in diameter at most. At appr 300 km distance that is quite a feat, knowing how fast particles would want to disperse in a vacuum, it's almost miraculous.
The scientists expected a slowly increasing amount of particles, because the ejected material was thought to quickly form into a cloud surrounding the nucleus. The NASA/JPL people admit that if they had known about these kind of jets they would probably have been more careful.
They came up with a rather lame suggestion that larger particles can "break up" at a certain distance from the comet and thus produce the collimated blast (a little jet inside a larger jet). That's presumably because they can't imagine how a jet can stay this narrow over such distances.
If you look at the artist's impression of cometary jets, they show dispersion, reflecting the view of how the jets were supposed to look.

Also surface features where the jets originate is a very important issue as well, where exactly are they?

Btw, the journal wasn't Nature as I said, but Science.

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by VanderL@Jul 24 2004, 09:17 AM
You're joking, right? Maybe comet Wild2 has a magma chamber hidden from view just like "Old Faithful"

I'm not sure exactly where Stardust was when the particles hit, but I estimate the "beam" was several hundreds of meters in diameter at most. At appr 300 km distance that is quite a feat, knowing how fast particles would want to disperse in a vacuum, it's almost miraculous.

I am not joking. Geysers are driven by boiling substances [water], and other gasses getting heated out of solution. These escape out of cracks in a higher melting-point material. I stand by the analogy as close enough. I'm not saying the jets are driven by water, it could by methane, nitrogen, ammonia, or even molecular hydrogen; but the mechanism could look similar.

How do you esitmate the 'beam' was several hundred meters in diameter? Even though particles do NOT disperse readily in a vacuum [unlike gas molecules], it would still be remarkable for the jet to be that narrow. two to ten kilometers wouldn't surprise me.

[damienpaul]

antoniseb, what you describe sounds spot on, phreatic , such as Old Faithful have been long posulated to occur on comets.

[VanderL]

How do you esitmate the 'beam' was several hundred meters in diameter?

A quick calculation based on the speed of Stardust (13,000 mph) and the duration of the blast (0.1 second), it could be even smaller because I don't know if the speed during the blast was transverse as I assumed.
Geysers are heated from inside (or below), to produce these kind of jets the pressure must be enormous, how does the solar heat get there and where are the geyser holes? If it is simple, why did the NASA/JPL people express surprise? Does anyone know any links to how the heating process is thought to happen?

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by VanderL@Jul 24 2004, 11:52 AM
A quick calculation based on the speed of Stardust (13,000 mph) and the duration of the blast (0.1 second), it could be even smaller because I don't know if the speed during the blast was transverse as I assumed.

Assuming that your numbers are correct, this would say that Stardust passed through a concentration about 600 meters in diameter, but nothing says it's a beam. It could just as easily been a spherical in shape, as dust being relaesed from a large lump ejected by some other means.

As to how the heating happens, there's lots of notions, but until Rosetta lands on its comet we won't be able to narrow the search. One thing is certain, comets become active as they get close to the sun, and become dormant when they are far from the sun. How does the electric dynamo theory explain that?

[VanderL]

One thing is certain, comets become active as they get close to the sun, and become dormant when they are far from the sun. How does the electric dynamo theory explain that?

It's on the webpage I linked to in my first post, since that page is quite long here is a quote:

How can a comet exhibit electrical effects? A comet's tail arises from the interaction between the electric charge of the comet and the solar discharge plasma. The comet spends most of its time far from the Sun, where the plasma charge density and voltage with respect to the Sun is low. The comet moves slowly and it easily accumulates enough charge to balance the ambient voltage.

As the comet approaches the Sun, the nucleus moves at a furious speed through regions of increasing charge density and voltage. The comet's surface charge and internal polarization, developed in deep space, respond to the new environment by forming cathode jets and a visible plasma sheath, or coma. The strong electric field in the comet’s plasma sheath generates x-rays. The cathode discharge hot spots characteristically jump about the nucleus, and the comet may shed and grow new tails. Or the comet may explode like an overstressed capacitor, breaking into separate fragments or simply giving up the ghost and disappearing. The “non-gravitational” forces observed perturbing comet orbits are simply these electrical interactions.

So basically the comet is only dissipating charge when it approaches the Sun and will produce a coma only when this charge exceeds certain limits.

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by VanderL@Jul 24 2004, 03:16 PM
So basically the comet is only dissipating charge when it approaches the Sun and will produce a coma only when this charge exceeds certain limits.

OK, without looking at the specifics of how much energy would have to be stored to make this happen and all, that seems like a reasonable explanation. How do they explain that comets give off less gas and dust with each orbit.

Another issue is that comets making their first pass into the inner solar system usually have a big flare up somewhere between the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. In the usual model, this is explained by super-volatile gasses getting heated for the first time. How does the electric universe explain this phenomenon?

[VanderL]

How do they explain that comets give off less gas and dust with each orbit.

Another issue is that comets making their first pass into the inner solar system usually have a big flare up somewhere between the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. In the usual model, this is explained by super-volatile gasses getting heated for the first time. How does the electric universe explain this phenomenon?

No different I guess, while the surface is "pristine" when a comet start it's maiden voyage, it is blackened by the subsequent electrical "machining" process, changing the surface. This could explain both observations, although I don't know for sure that comets really give off less gas and dust after each passage.

Some points that can falsify the electrical explanation:
1. jets are preferentially emitted from brighter/higher surfaces
2. comets are pieces of rock, not dirty snowballs
3. jets are always vertical to the comet's surface
(4. comets are subject to the same non-Newtonian acceleration that the Pioneer spacecraft encountered.)

Since in the electric model comets are only distinguishable from asteroids by their orbits and both are debris from discharges on planetary surfaces (or moons) the composition of comets would resemble those of asteroids and meteorites. This will also be falsifiable when the comet dust can be studied next year.


Cheers.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by VanderL@Jul 25 2004, 01:55 PM
Since ... both are debris from discharges on planetary surfaces (or moons) the composition of comets would resemble those of asteroids and meteorites.

I'm not sure that it's safe to assume that all asteroids and comets are objects discharged from planets or moons [some asteroids are]

BTW, I liked your list of ways that the Electric theory of comets can be distinguished from the usual theory. I'm not sure that I agree with them all, or believe that this is an exhaustive list.

Can you briefly explain how each of these would refute the electric comet model?

[VanderL]

Can you briefly explain how each of these would refute the electric comet model?

Well, the jets are either like geysers, as is thought in the "dirty snowball" model where the comet is heated to produce them (btw, I've never seen a detailed discussion how this is supposed to work) or they are electric discharges in the electric model. When jets are formed electrically they would be starting at high points (just like Earth's lightning would seek the least resistance) and are visible as unresolved (since there is no vent hole) bright spots.
In the electric model comets are debris from the surface of planets or moons and will have the same composition. Most of the volatiles will have disappeared in the initial blast (which incidentally is responsible for the heavy cratering), so no large amounts of ices (water or others) will be present.
Jets in the geyser model could also start at an angle with regard to the surface of the comet (through cracks and crevices), in an electric model they should always be vertical.

The list is certainly incomplete, I'll extend them if I can.

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by VanderL@Jul 25 2004, 05:05 PM
I'll extend them if I can.

Thanks, that was pretty straight-forward.

I suspect that the Stardust sample return will not include any of the volatiles in the comet. We do observe the evidence of the volatiles in the spectrum of the plasma tail and coma of most comets. That being said, I'm not sure I understand when the electric universe model predicts that comets are the same material as asteroids.

[VanderL]

I'm not sure I understand when the electric universe model predicts that comets are the same material as asteroids.

Well, for the standard idea of comets there must be ice and volatiles to produce the "lightshow". For an electric model there is no need for volatiles (electrically machining the surface is enough), and because the material of asteroids and comets have the same origin (planets and moons) and only differ in their orbits, the dust that is collected by Stardust will basically be the same. There will of course be differences (the exact planet or moon that was the origin of the comet could differ in composition) but we should in principle be able to tell if the comet was of Martian origin, for example.

Another topic on the list is the Oort cloud, in the electric model the comets were formed quite recently so there is no need for an Oort cloud. But absence or presence of the cloud will be hard to verify.

More later,

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by VanderL@Jul 25 2004, 10:36 PM
absence or presence of the cloud will be hard to verify.

It's hard to verify, but it is easy to verify that some comets that enter the inner solar system are coming in on orbits that are nearly a lightyear long, and others come from outside the sun's influence. I'd be interested in knowing what kind of mechanism could eject comets into such long orbits if they are being blasted off of planets and moons. It is also curious that there is a belief that somehow the planet forming process could have been 100% efficient in clearing out the primordial planet forming materials. In saying this I'm not criticising the over-all electric universe theory. I don't see that comets and stony asteroids have to be made of the same stuff as a test of the theory's validity. The theory's protagonists will keep going even if Stardust and Rosetta report that comets are made of very different stuff from asteroids.

[VanderL]

Generally, the comet story is linked to the electric model in different ways, the asteroid/comet composition is on of them, the most important one is the actual description of the cometary jets. I wouldn't say that finding no evidence of volatiles/ices in Wild2's dust will tip the balance towards the electric model, but taken together with images of the jets (at least I hope more detailed images will become available) it would at least support the model.

The theory's protagonists will keep going even if Stardust and Rosetta report that comets are made of very different stuff from asteroids.

Well, if you're convinced the model is correct, it is legitimate to come up with good arguments that will explain the findings in the light of new evidence. We'll see about that later, for now it would be nice to get close-up views of the jet-emanating areas on comet Wild2.

Cheers.

[VanderL]

Hi,
I've been talking about the jet sources of comet Wild2 and this is an image that shows where the most likely sources are in the Electric model:

Comet Wild 2 hotspots


I haven't found any other pictures/explanations for these "hotspots", I'll try and look them up.

Cheers.


P.S. I corrected the link.

[VanderL]

There was mention of the bright spots (see previous post) but no explanation on the NASA/JPL website.
Note also the "unusual" jets coming from dark parts of the comet. Unusual because unexpected, I think, we have only very few images of where exactly the jets are formed, so we don't really know what is usual.


Cheers.