Comet Lovejoy photographed by NASA astronaut Dan Burbank from the ISS. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
This post is in part an edited version of an earlier post. Due to the release of new information I felt the subject should be revisited.
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 was taken by Stardust. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Comet Hartley image was 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 significant quantities of 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. None of these comets fits Fred Whipple's decription of a dirty snowball as shown below.
Fred Whipple presenting his "dirty snowball" hypothesis of comets. Image courtesy of Daily Mail
"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 lack of observed surface h2o 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 which did come as a surprise to NASA investigators.
"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 upon viewing the images it seems negligible at best as if it barely scratched the surface. I also find it curious that they were able to focus in on the first shot but not the second, as if, perhaps they wanted to obfuscate the lack of depth.
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, as well, the speed with which the comet is travelling . 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. But instead they contrive weak ad hoc explanations which typify much of the standard theories in astrophysics. Positing things such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy which remind me of Ptolemy's fantastical geocentric model of the solar system that required deferrents, epicycle and "equaints" for it to work with some accuracy.
It was more than a century ago, based on his lab experiments with a "terrella"-a vacuum chamber with a magnetized ball exposed to an electric field, and coupled with his observations of the Aurora Borealis, that Kristian Birkeland proposed electric currents in space. He was dismissed by Lord Kelvin for the consensus at that time was that space was a void, and the esteemed geophysicist and mathematician Sidney Chapman seemed to go out of his way to deride Birkeland even further. Meanwhile, Hannes Alfven, Nobel Laureate for his work with plasma physics championed Birkeland's ideas and decades later in the 1960s it was discovered that such currents do exist 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 falsify 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 curator
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.
Kristian Birkeland had this intriguing observation regarding solar flares and comet brightness in his book 'The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903'.
"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'.
Granted there is a problem with this comparison as comet brightness was based on human observation and not by a more accurate mechanical means, also, it is just one comet, therefore, it is wise to reserve judgement. Though, I am of the opinion that this does merit further investigation, especially by any astronomer who may doubt the claim as there is a century of observational data which one could utilize.
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
Finally, I offer you these two videos from the Thunderbolts Project where they discus several recent findings which further support the electric comet hypothesis.
Confirmed; Comet Dust tail is electrically charged
Wal Thornhill on Ultima Thule
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 than 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
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
Congratulations @daemon-nice! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit