Solar wind and space dust create new source of water, laboratory study suggests

Jan 21, 2014 by Akshat Rathi, The Conversation
New source of water? Credit: luc_viatour

Water ice is the most abundant solid material in the universe. Much of it was created as the byproduct of star formation, but not all. John Bradley of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and his team may have discovered a new source of water in our solar system. His lab experiments reveal that the solar wind may be creating water on interplanetary dust.

The sun ejects high-speed charged particles in all directions. Bodies in the inner solar system get bombarded by this wind of particles, which continuously varies in intensity.

Small bodies, such as dust particles or tiny asteroids, can be eroded by these harsh winds. Larger bodies that do not have an atmosphere, such as the Moon, are bombarded by both the and tiny meteorites. This form of bombardment causes a phenomenon called space weathering. (Atmospheres protect planets from tiny meteorites, while a magnetic field can deflect solar winds.)

The lunar dust brought back by the Apollo missions showed for the first time the result of space weathering – though not immediately. A careful examination of the dust returned from the lunar surface had to wait until the 1990s when scientific instruments became good enough. When finally observed under sufficiently powerful microscopes, the dust particles revealed what have been called "rims."

These dust particles are usually made of silicates – compounds of silicon, oxygen, hydrogen and few metallic elements. The rims are the result of chemical modification of the surface of the particle, caused by high energy impacts and the continuous bombardment of the solar wind.

The modification leads to an imbalance in the chemical structure of the particle, sometimes loosening the bonds holding oxygen and in the silicates. This made scientists speculate that there is a chance that water could be formed somewhere in these rims .

Water needs two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. If silicates provide one atom of each element, then only one more hydrogen atom is needed. Conveniently, hydrogen atoms are available in abundance in the solar wind, where they are found as high-energy protons (hydrogen atoms stripped off their electrons). If the conditions are right, this charged hydrogen atom can react on a 's rim to form water.

Plausible as this seems, past attempts to find water on these rims gave mixed results. The problem was that the reactions were happening at such tiny scales, and instruments weren't good enough to unambiguously detect water.

That's where Bradley's work comes in. The team attempted to locate water using a highly-sensitive method of analysis called valence electron energy-loss spectroscopy. The method involves exposing a sample to a beam of electrons that, on hitting the material, will get deflected at different speeds. The deflection and the speeds can reveal how much energy was lost by the electrons in the process, which is based on the type of atom it hits. The instrument can identify the composition of a material at very small scales, just enough for Bradley to analyse silicate rims.

The best way to determine whether water forms on silicate rims is to do these experiments on the types of silicate material that exist in space. Bradley did this by using three types of these minerals: olivine, clinopyroxene, and anorthine. These were exposed to charged hydrogen and helium particles, which were a proxy for the solar wind.

If water is formed by the solar wind, it would only be found in the samples that were exposed to hydrogen – not in those exposed to helium. And that is what happened. As reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Bradley's sensitive tests repeatedly found water, but only in the samples that were bombarded by hydrogen.

Martin McCoustra at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh finds the work convincing. He said: "I am not very surprised that water could be formed on silicates. However, now that they have shown that it can, it could be an important source of water."

Bradley's work implies that water molecules must have been forming for billions of years on , on the Moon, and possibly on asteroids. However, McCoustra warns that "This source of water, albeit new, won't be able to account for a large proportion of water in the . Most of that water was formed during the process of that our sun went through."

Some have argued that water-rich comets planted on our planet. But McCoustra reckons that a single-source is unlikely. And this study provides another potential source for the material that helps make our planet habitable.

Explore further: Your house is full of space dust – it reveals the solar system's story

More information: Paper: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1320115111

Related Stories

Metamorphosis of moon's water ice explained

Jun 19, 2013

Using data gathered by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission, scientists believe they have solved a mystery from one of the solar system's coldest regions—a permanently shadowed crater on the ...

Recommended for you

Video: A dizzying view of the Earth from space

41 minutes ago

We've got vertigo watching this video, but in a good way! This is a sped-up view of Earth from the International Space Station from the Cupola, a wraparound window that is usually used for cargo ship berthings ...

NEOWISE spots a comet that looked like an asteroid

42 minutes ago

Comet C/2013 UQ4 (Catalina) has been observed by NASA's Near-Earth Object Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (NEOWISE) spacecraft just one day after passing through its closest approach to the sun. The comet ...

What the UK Space Agency can teach Australia

51 minutes ago

Australia has had an active civil space program since 1947 but has much to learn if it is to capture a bigger share of growing billion dollar global space industry. ...

Discover the "X-factor" of NASA's Webb telescope

1 hour ago

NASA's James Webb Space Telescope and Chandra X-ray observatory have something in common: a huge test chamber used to simulate the hazards of space and the distant glow of starlight. Viewers can learn about ...

User comments : 74

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2014
This is similar process to comet "water". Hydroxyl is produced by plasma discharge on comet surface, which meets solar wind hydrogen atoms and voila, H2O. No dirty snowballs, just the black solid rocky bodies they appear to be.
https://www.googl...bih=1075
Mike_Massen
not rated yet Jan 22, 2014
On this site about a year or so ago I postulated one source of (continued addition of) water for our planet could arise from the interaction of the solar wind with ozone in the upper atmosphere given that some protons can sneak through various chaotic eddies in our magnetic field & especially so during solar storms or any other phenomena which could disturb the seemingly homogenous magnetic protection we so much rely on.

Nothing in nature seems to be 100% and so much more on a grand scale, so the reasoning I apply is that a small percentage may slip through, react and some of that water may end up falling to Earth of course some of that water too may be sloughed off into space...

Wonder if this was considered in the pnas article ?

@cantdrive85
What plasma discharges, do you think the solar wind gets to > 6000 deg C for a plasma, wouldnt it dissipate heat very quickly, got any maths to show thermal losses the 90M odd Km from our Sun ?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
The heat is not generated kinetically, it's an electric discharge in plasma.

http://www.youtub...;index=3

Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
cantdrive85 claimed
The heat is not generated kinetically, it's an electric discharge in plasma.
Please don't post videos that are 90mins long, instead please be efficient & post the maths and/or the source of this "plasma" which must be by definition excited atoms that are so hot the electrons are no longer bound - isnt it the case for water this is ~6000 degs ?

Where this plasma come from and in what mass, quantitative please don't lovey dovey 90mins video with gentle manipulative voice overs ?

Details in 30secs flat will do it cantdrive85, how about "can articulate 2014" details instead - aye ?

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
The solar wind is plasma, a comet's coma is plasma. 99.999% of the solar system is plasma, the only thing in this equation that isn't plasma is the rocky body itself, however it is a charged object immersed in plasma so it will discharge as such. No "maths" are needed, just an understanding of the obvious.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2014
The heat is not generated kinetically, it's an electric discharge in plasma

@cantdrive85
and you have verifiable empirical data of comets reaching temperatures above 6000C/6273.1K?
If you need > 6000 deg C (6273.1K) for a plasma, it means that there is heat.
in space: Heat travels through a vacuum by infrared radiation (light with a longer wavelength than the human eye can see)

I have seen readings of comets in the 200-300K range, but never above 6000K
I would LOVE to see some NASA readings above this if you have them- comets must be in space at least/greater than our distance from the sun.

Therefore an infrared spectral analysis of a comet is typical to see freezing temperatures but not temps that would show indication of plasma which would light up the detectors with readings above 6000C/6273.1K

and yes, MATHS ARE needed to verify your claims
if your going to push EU CRACKPOT science
do it all the way or go home
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2014
Since you are making the claim, please show where and what literature 6000C is needed for matter to be in plasma state. That is a remarkably inaccurate statement. It just shows complete ignorance of the primary state of matter.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2014
please show where and what literature 6000C is needed for matter to be in plasma state.

@cd
OK, maybe not >6000 (typo), but still HOT >several thousands

https://en.wikipe...ysics%29

A plasma is sometimes referred to as being "hot" if it is nearly fully ionized, or "cold" if only a small fraction (for example 1%) of the gas molecules are ionized, but other definitions of the terms "hot plasma" and "cold plasma" are common. Even in a "cold" plasma, the electron temperature is still typically several thousand degrees Celsius. Plasmas utilized in "plasma technology" ("technological plasmas") are usually cold plasmas in the sense that only a small fraction of the gas molecules are ionized.

[sic]
maybe not >6000, however, it DOES mean high temps.
Which, by using basic high school science
proves that you are a CRACKPOT
selling a CRACKPOT hypothesis
Ens
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2014
But wait guys, my television is PLASMA! He might be onto something!!!

Or just a nut bar.
aroc91
5 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2014
No "maths" are needed, just an understanding of the obvious.


False. The entirety of physics is math based. Without mathematical models, you're left with hand-waving conjecture.
GSwift7
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2014
This is similar process to comet "water". Hydroxyl is produced by plasma discharge on comet surface, which meets solar wind hydrogen atoms and voila, H2O. No dirty snowballs, just the black solid rocky bodies they appear to be


Oh boy, where to begin.

You know, there's a name for black solid rocky bodies: Asteroids.

Asteroids do not produce a coma or tail (except in the rare case of sun-grazing asteroids, which sometimes fracture due to heat stress, which may expose volatiles inside them, which sublime). Additionally, most comets spend the majority of their lives outside the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. At that distance, they do not have a tail or coma.

When comets do enter the inner solar system, they produce a tail. We have quite good images of this process, so there is very little mystery about this today.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2014
You know, there's a name for black solid rocky bodies: Asteroids.


Yep, are you somehow suggesting the images in the link don't look like asteroids? Thing is they are comets, which look much like comets without the electric discharge. This is why some asteroids can behave like comets and "sprout" six tails.
http://phys.org/n...ils.html
BTW, that article blows up this claim;
(except in the rare case of sun-grazing asteroids, which sometimes fracture due to heat stress, which may expose volatiles inside them, which sublime)

I like how you insert that claim of superior hypothesis which in no way explains asteroid belt objects such as this.

We have quite good images of this process, so there is very little mystery about this today.

Of what? Is that why there was not one single successful prediction about ANY of the comet missions to date? Well that is except for Wal Thornhill who predicted several of the phenomena. http://www.thunde...ions.htm
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2014
Of what? Is that why there was not one single successful prediction about ANY of the comet missions to date? Well that is except for Wal Thornhill who predicted several of the phenomena


using CRACKPOT science like EU does NOT mean that there was no single successful prediction about any of the comet missions to date
your link does NOT prove that
you cannot make that assumption and then NOT provide proof
just like your assumptions above
which are proven wrong with BASIC science

just because the law of averages is in your corner over time does not prove that you accurately predicted anything over the standard model

take the CRACKPOT science home

use only real science, math and links to reputable sites if you want ANYONE to take you seriously

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
Mike and Cap'n,
Unfortunately, I find myself in the awkward position of having to point out that, technically, plasma is NOT defined as a state with substantive heat as a prerequisite....
"an ionized gas consisting of positive ions and free electrons in proportions resulting in more or less no overall electric charge, typically at low pressures (as in the upper atmosphere and in fluorescent lamps) or at very high temperatures (as in stars and nuclear fusion reactors)."
I believe heat is more a by product of the plasma excitation.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
WG is totally correct, except plasmas are far more diverse and complex than that.
http://plasmadict...e=detail

Spend some time there, it is a "Plasma Dictionary" by LLNL (sorry, not the rudimentary definitions on wiki). Learn at least a little about the matter that makes up 99.999% of the universe. It's remarkable how you can be so sure of yourself when you are so completely ignorant about the matter.

just because the law of averages is in your corner over time does not prove that you accurately predicted anything over the standard model

Denial, delusion... What he predicted were very specific events, and you claim something about the law of averages. Maybe stupidity... Then again.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice." Heinlein's Razor
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2014
No "maths" are needed, just an understanding of the obvious.


False. The entirety of physics is math based. Without mathematical models, you're left with hand-waving conjecture.

Science is about understanding nature, not just mathematical models. Mathematical models are supportive and ancillary to experiment. I've got a thousand characters or less, I'm making a comment about the physical processes, processes which have been repeated in lab experiments since about 1900. If you can really understand the maths I would hope you can locate the maths of electric discharge in gas.
http://www.plasma...dTor.pdf
http://www.dnva.n...id=44836
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
Birkeland's comet theory, based upon experiment.
http://www.plasma...s_theory
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2014
@W Gyre
whereas that is true, to obtain the results that cantthink uses, you need to maintain high temps to sustain the ionization to gain the results that he requires, according to everything i've read thus far. Keep reading up on it. You can also research some of the physicists that are debunking it. Very helpful. It will open your eyes to the tricks CD uses, as well as the CRACKPOT stuff that they tend to post.
"Very high temperatures are usually needed to sustain ionization, which is a defining feature of a plasma."[sic]

https://en.wikipe...ysics%29

Birkeland's comet theory, based upon experiment.
http://www.plasma...s_theory

MORE CRACKPOT SCIENCE
debunked by real physicists

go away
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
Birkeland's comet theory, based upon experiment.
http://www.plasma...rse.com/

@cantdrive85
CRACKPOT science site references
KNOWN crackpot hypothesis
formally DEBUNKED by numerous physicists

Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 22, 2014
Stumpy. Were you Army? If so, month/year and locale of basic...
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 23, 2014
Stumpy. Were you Army? If so, month/year and locale of basic...

Jan 86 USMC @ Parris Island, S.C
sep 89 Air Farce @ SanAntonio
mar 98 Army @ Ft.Jackson, S.C.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
Stumpy. Were you Army? If so, month/year and locale of basic...

Jan 86 USMC @ Parris Island, S.C
sep 89 Air Farce @ SanAntonio
mar 98 Army @ Ft.Jackson, S.C.

Oh. was lookin for Dec, 72 - Ft. Polk.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 23, 2014
Oh. was lookin for Dec, 72 - Ft. Polk.

you?

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
Oh. was lookin for Dec, 72 - Ft. Polk.

you?

Ya. Was a guy we named Stumpy in platoon.
Was a shot in the dark.
Woulda been funny, tho....
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 23, 2014
Ya. Was a guy we named Stumpy in platoon.
Was a shot in the dark.
Woulda been funny, tho....

i was called "gramps" in basic
too bad we dont have PM function
or a way to share e-mail addy without posting it to the cranks

what do you think about this (below) in the article?
Bradley's work implies that water molecules must have been forming for billions of years on interplanetary dust particles, on the Moon, and possibly on asteroids

makes me wonder about the possibilities...

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
Birkeland's comet theory, based upon experiment.
http://www.plasma...rse.com/

@cantdrive85
CRACKPOT science site references
KNOWN crackpot hypothesis
formally DEBUNKED by numerous physicists


Why are you afraid of explanations that involve confirmation via experimentation? Oh right, because you've spent a life (military) being told what to think and can't do it for yourself.

The same experiments that led to his proposing aurora theory (which have been verified) are the same ones that led to his comet theory. Denial, delusion... Maybe you can point to one lab experiment that does the same for the "standard" comet theory. Oh right, you can't because there hasn't been one, ever! Fail!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
to obtain the results that cantthink uses, you need to maintain high temps to sustain the ionization to gain the results that he requires, according to everything i've read thus far. Keep reading up on it. You can also research some of the physicists that are debunking it. Very helpful. It will open your eyes to the tricks CD uses, as well as the CRACKPOT stuff that they tend to post.
"Very high temperatures are usually needed to sustain ionization, which is a defining feature of a plasma."[sic]


"Very high temps are usually needed", on Earth. Whereas, in space the natural state is plasma. We can go on but you will only continue to look the fool!
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
cantdrive85 made the oddest of all claims
"Very high temps are usually needed", on Earth. Whereas, in space the natural state is plasma. We can go on but you will only continue to look the fool!
Please first cantdrive85 review the accepted definition of Plasma, fairly well presented here:-
http://en.wikiped...physics)

Bear in mind much of space is COLD & excited atoms eg plasma dissipates & radiate energy as LIGHT, ie. Allows electrons to again fall into orbit around nuclei - basic physics.

Plasma exists, you know because you see its signature, there is a lot of gas too, we know because light passes through but, gas isnt 'cold' plasma it's gas - read carefully section above link "Degree of Ionization"

There is a great deal of plasma around but, it is visible *because* it is an excited (ie Hot) state of matter - by definition but, it radiates energy & return to gas unless 're-ionized' - how ?

Your definition of plasma differs as u suggest its invisible ?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
what do you think about this (below) in the article?
Bradley's work implies that water molecules must have been forming for billions of years on interplanetary dust particles, on the Moon, and possibly on asteroids

makes me wonder about the possibilities...

For me it just means the likelihood of water EVERYwhere is prob'ly pretty good.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
@cd
Why are you afraid of explanations that involve confirmation via experimentation?

i'm NOT
being told what to think

this is one reason that I abhor restrictions now
and one reason that I despise CRACKPOTS
you can't because there hasn't been one, ever! Fail!

actually, from what i've read, the SM comet explanations are similar except that SM includes Sublimation (etc), which Birkland seems to IGNORE
and SM is not a static theory

you really DONT get it, do you?
Like I said before
JUST BECAUSE you have one or two pieces of real science
doesn't MEAN that the whole theory is good
your EU hypothesis has been repeatedly DEBUNKED
it is CRACKPOT SCIENCE
you are nothing more than an acolyte preaching to whomever will listen
you are the EU Witness, knocking on every freakin cosmology article
pushing a CRACKPOT site!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
Birkeland's comet theory, based upon experiment.
...www.plasma-universe.com

@cd
Birkland(B) got a couple things right
but then along comes an acolyte of EU and posts this on the CRACKPOT science website
this reference to CRACKPOT science site is just WRONG
B showed in an experiment where there are effects
but YOU are saying that plasma is the ONLY explanation
IT IS NOT

in fact, according to what i've read, it is a number of things that cause the tail.
The  H2O parent molecule is destroyed primarily through photodissociation and to a much smaller extent photoionization, with the solar wind playing a minor role in the destruction of water compared to photochemistry.[Combi, Michael R.; Harris, Walter M.; Smyth, William H. (2004). "Gas dynamics and kinetics in the cometary coma: Theory and observations"]

so take your CRACKPOT SITE
and your CRACKPOT SCIENCE
and go away

this is a REAL SCIENCE site
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
Please first cantdrive85 review the accepted definition of Plasma, fairly well presented here:-
http://en.wikiped...physics)


You'd prefer the definition provided by wiki rather than the plasma resources page at Lawrence Livermore National Lab that I provided above? It should be noted there is active scientific censorship taking place on wiki as can be seen here;
http://www.libert...nection/
There is a small insular group of "scientists" who benefit from a misunderstanding of plasma, it's in their best interests to obfuscate the truth.
Plasma ranges from near absolute zero to many millions of degrees and yes plasma can be "invisible". There are three modes of plasma, arc, glow, and dark mode and dark mode is "invisible" so to speak. Interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space is all dark mode plasma. 99.999% of the observable universe is plasma, which is the "natural" state of matter.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
@cd
There is a small insular group of "scientists" who benefit from a misunderstanding of plasma, it's in their best interests to obfuscate the truth

conspiracy?
Is this the same core group of almost all physicist who ignore EU as CRACKPOT science?
You'd prefer the definition provided by wiki rather than

I never use just one source
dont confuse expedience with ignorance
wiki also allows for general comments that are accesible to most of the general public with a reading level that is at least 8th grade = simple, easy to understand for others
There are three modes of plasma

you keep wanting to debate specifics
as I said
JUST BECAUSE you have one or two pieces of real science
doesn't MEAN that the whole theory is good
your EU hypothesis has been repeatedly DEBUNKED
it is CRACKPOT SCIENCE

just because i have $ in my pocket and real teeth (real science can prove this)
doesn't mean the TOOTH FAIRY is REAL

aroc91
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
Relevant:

http://www.tim-th...sun.html

If you want to go head to head with a former JPL physicist, be my guest.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2014
Gas dynamics and kinetics in the cometary coma: Theory and observations

I really appreciate you exemplifying the ignorance of the "standard" theory and in extension your own. This is plasma phenomena, interplanetary space is plasma, the solar wind is plasma, the coma (even if partially ionized) is plasma. If you read the third sentence of LLNL definition of plasma it states;
"Plasmas have unique physics compared to solids, liquids, and gases; although plasmas are often treated as extremely hot gases, this is often incorrect."
You read that, it says "plasmas have unique physics compared to solids, liquids, and gases" yet this guy is describing this action using kinetic gas laws. This is the fundamental difference between astrophysicists and experimental plasma physicists, astro's use "ideal MHD models of ionized gases" (models we know to be wrong) whereas plasma phys use the particle/circuit models used by nuclear phys. Astro's are using the same models as Chapman did 70yrs ago.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
Relevant:

http://www.tim-th...sun.html

If you want to go head to head with a former JPL physicist, be my guest.

You must have missed the last discussion where I linked rebuttals by Dr. Scott in re Tim Thompson's obfuscation of reality. TT doesn't even apply the correct physics to the Electric Sun model, he tries to use pith ball electrostatics which is completely wrong.

http://electric-c...nder.pdf

It doesn't matter that he's completely wrong, and shown to be, his acolytes will continue to refer to this as "proof". All it proves is he doesn't know his plasma from a hole in the ground.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
@cd
I really appreciate you exemplifying the ignorance of the "standard" theory and in extension your own. This is plasma phenomena, interplanetary space is plasma, the solar wind is plasma, the coma (even if partially ionized) is plasma. If you read the third sentence of LLNL definition of plasma it states

what you are saying is the the standard model (SM) does not even consider plasma, nor does it even talk about it in its theory?
AND THAT is WHY YOU are a CRACKPOT
ONLY YOU believe that this issue is not addressed anywhere
and ONLY YOU believe that ONLY YOUR PET HYPOTHESIS can explain it
this is the Saturn/Cassini article all over again!

http://phys.org/n...day.html

this is the dead horse I have been beating!

Your comments are the same as saying:
given that QM has superpositions;
YOU can therefore say that YOU are SUPERMAN and can fly
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
@cd
Tim Thompson's obfuscation of reality

obviously YOU cant READ
TT... tries to use pith ball electrostatics which is completely wrong

Tim Thompson applied real science to prove that the comments stated were wrong

and is reviewing your rebuttal

I know you THINK you are smarter than everyone else
but I haven't forgotten you
when I have finished, I WILL post it
just like I am working on some others

only YOU can be so narcissistic to think that your EU is the ONLY CRACKPOT hypothesis out there, and that we should all drop everything and immediately address YOUR bad logic/posts

give us time... after all, you posted it, now we have to read it, assess it, correct it, etc, etc... THAT takes time

i work SLOW
and i am being meticulous
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
wiki also allows for general comments that are accesible to most of the general public with a reading level that is at least 8th grade = simple, easy to understand for others

I must commend you that you have achieved an eighth grade reading proficiency, in that case wiki is a good place for you.

you keep wanting to debate specifics


I want this "proof" you claim to have that shows EU and PC to be "proven" wrong. Lots of hand-waving, appeals to authority, and links to JA's that I have repeatedly shown to obfuscate the truth doesn't constitute "proof". It's like 1984 again, "Where's the proof?".
http://www.youtub...5diEyiA0

I don't think there's anything in there!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
what you are saying is the the standard model (SM) does not even consider plasma, nor does it even talk about it in its theory?

You're lying again, what I said was;
This is the fundamental difference between astrophysicists and experimental plasma physicists, astro's use "ideal MHD models of ionized gases" (models we know to be wrong) whereas plasma phys use the particle/circuit models used by nuclear phys. Astro's are using the same models as Chapman did 70yrs ago.


Maybe try for ninth grade reading now...then tenth...
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
I don't think there's anything in there!
Your head you mean! I agree. Really, Birkelands musings from 1913? About comets? Are you so far gone as to not even understand how utterly out of date almost everything in that paper is?

Rhetorical question of course; you are that far gone, and probably can't even understand how it must look to people who realize that we have sent machines to them! Talk about beating a dead horse......

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
I know you THINK you are smarter than everyone else

I used to do as you do, thought similarly, believed that all those scientists couldn't be wrong, believed in black holes, neutron stars, and dark matter, etc. Carl Sagan was my hero and science could do no wrong. Eventually I opened my eyes, I read about Tesla, Birkeland, Alfven, Arp, and Hoyle among many others who were cast aside for nefarious reasons. Most produced experimental evidence that didn't fit the "accepted" paradigm. I realized the fact the "standard" model is almost entirely theoretical with no chance of falsification, the very antithesis of science. Science is about vetting every possibility, not just the ones that fit a certain viewpoint.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
I don't think there's anything in there!
Your head you mean! I agree. Really, Birkelands musings from 1913? About comets? Are you so far gone as to not even understand how utterly out of date almost everything in that paper is?

Rhetorical question of course; you are that far gone, and probably can't even understand how it must look to people who realize that we have sent machines to them! Talk about beating a dead horse......


Yep, and some predictions based upon Birkeland's theory;
http://www.thunde...ions.htm

BTW, can you name one successful prediction made by NASA in re to any of the comet missions? Rhetorical question, I know the answer.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
@cd
here is why we cant agree on certain things
first:
Maybe try for ninth grade reading now...then tenth...

if you had actually READ what I said... you wouldnt have ignored the last part
8th grade = simple, easy to understand for others

which then puts you at what? A 5th grade level?
no...worse, as this comment proves:
You're lying again, what I said was

I did not make a statement. I asked a question
those thingy's at the end that are curved and look like this
?

they are called question marks
I asked because modern physicists INCLUDE plasma in their research
just like modern fusion nuclear experiments require it
I am not saying that nuclear plasma physics is not a field of study/science

I am saying that it is the height of conceit for you to assume that modern physicists and cosmologists dont do their homework and include plasma physics
and you can quote THAT all you want
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2014
@cd
I used to do as you do, thought similarly, believed

first, this is OFF TOPIC
but...
I dont believe this either as you are NOT aware of how I think
other than the fact that I dont like your CRACKPOT EU hypothesis
Eventually I opened my eyes

but did not/ DO NOT understand
Tesla, Birkeland, Alfven, Arp, and Hoyle

and what you STILL dont get is this
their CONTRIBUTIONS to SCIENCE are known and accepted
HOWEVER
their CRACKPOT HYPOTHESIS was DEBUNKED
and is SHUNNED
just like you ASSUME that I shun everything they did
I shun only the CRACKPOT stuff
like your claims in the Cassini/Saturn thread

go away, cantdrive
this is getting boring and repetitious continually attempting to get you to learn science

there ARE other articles
with real results
i cant take all day reading YOUR CRACKPOT stuff
you are not the ONLY CRANK HERE
and quit linking to CRACKPOT sites
you want to impress, link to PHYSICS journals etc
LEAVE OFF the EU CRACKPOT SITES
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
Tim Thompson applied real science to prove that the comments stated were wrong

and is reviewing your rebuttal

TT got this rebuttal 7 years ago when the author penned it, and he has yet to respond. I'm not holding my breath though, if he has half a brain he already knows his claims are false and that is likely the reason he has yet to address it.

this is getting boring and repetitious continually attempting to get you to learn science

That's a funny one, you have not made a single accurate scientific comment which "proves" anything whatsoever. Talk about repetitious, just read your drivel.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2014
@cd
That's a funny one, you have not made a single accurate scientific comment which "proves" anything whatsoever.

I only have a minute so...

http://phys.org/n...nal.html

you posted a link that opposed GR based upon a fallacy
I pointed it out

in this thread alone you assumed that the SM did not take into consideration plasma physics, which I pointed out

http://phys.org/n...day.html

you postulated that the only thing that could make those shapes @Saturn was EU theory
Only electrical forces can explain phenomena across such scales

but both Q-Star and I posted

http://www.planet...471.html

which directly refuted that argument, and proved that you were wrong
in the Cassini/Saturn thread alone you posted more drivel than usual

there are many other instances, of which I can copy/paste
but I am tired of arguing with stupid CRACKPOT acolytes like you

EU = CRACKPOT=another accurate statement
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
you posted a link that opposed GR based upon a fallacy
I pointed it out

You said;
this is blatantly false: the escape velocity is GREATER than light in a vacuum.

Yeah, and? You're using those models that Chapman used 70+ years ago blathering on about "vacuum of space". With measurements since the space age, this notion is patently false, intergalactic space is plasma. However rarified, it is no vacuum. Fail

in this thread alone you assumed that the SM did not take into consideration plasma physics, which I pointed out

No ? there, so that would now constitute a lie. What I said then and all along is that they treat the plasma as an "ideal MHD gas". They use the wrong models, they take it into consideration, just incorrectly. Fail
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
you postulated that the only thing that could make those shapes @Saturn was EU theory

Only electrical forces can explain phenomena across such scales


but both Q-Star and I posted


Lying more? There was context involved there. If you reread the comments I agreed the link offered a possible mechanism for that one single phenomena (Saturn hexagon) but such a mechanism did explain other natural hexagons such as hexagonal craters and galaxies.

There entire basis for your "debate" is misinformation, lies, and repeated fallacious argument. Pathetic! Would it help you understand these facts it better if I included some CAPITALIZED words PEPPERED here and THERE so AS to BETTER explain THE POINT? I think they start teaching small case letters some time in ninth grade English.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
@cd
No ? there, so that would now constitute a lie. What I said then and all along is that they treat the plasma as an "ideal MHD gas". They use the wrong models, they take it into consideration, just incorrectly. Fail

based upon what evidence?
where is your proof?
links?
math?
models?
or are you taking someone else's word? are you THE authority?
again, my statement stands.
you make assumptions that you cannot prove, post it and expect it to be authoritative.
this is the SURE sign of the CRACKPOT

Your assumptions on the actions/thoughts of cosmologists and physicists alone are enough to prove you are a CRACKPOT
in regard to your wrongful assumptions:
no proof = no links = wrong assumptions = CRACKPOT
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
@cd
If you reread the comments I agreed the link offered a possible mechanism

which was noted
but there was a better and more accurate theory that more accurately reproduced the results, which you continually denied
and you couldnt even acknowledge that the Diocotron Instability is the plasma analog of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in fluid mechanics.
You stated
Q's links discussed kelvin helmholtz instabilities of gases/fluids, looks cool but it's not applicable to this plasma. Diocotron instabilities in plasma is what drives these formations

where was I wrong?
this trend continues through the whole thread

You are continually posting CRACKPOT EU
referencing back to CRACKPOT sites

this site is about REAL SCIENCE
try it
post reputable references
use the journal of physics
SOME of the science you post is REAL, it just doesnt apply to EVERYTHING like you claim

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
@cantdrive
you go ahead and continue to post your CRACKPOT EU

your CRACKPOT EU =
unproven and ALSO REPEATEDLY DEBUNKED
even though you deny it
it is DEBUNKED by REAL PHYSICISTS
compared to the SUCCESS of the standard model, as well as QM
you have no leg to stand on
that is why you must continually reference your crackpot site
aroc said it best
The extent of his "experimental verification" is typically along the lines of "plasma vortices have been created in the lab, therefore tornadoes and other weather phenomena are electrical in nature" or "you can pit metal with a high current spark, therefore the grand canyon was formed by electricity rather than water". The disconnect there is obvious.

Bye bye, CRACKPOT
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
Is it remotely possible cantdrive85 CAN think & duly respond to this (from me earlier):-
Please first cantdrive85 review the accepted definition of Plasma, fairly well presented here:-
http://en.wikiped...physics)

Bear in mind much of space is COLD & excited atoms eg plasma dissipates & radiate energy as LIGHT, ie. Allows electrons to again fall into orbit around nuclei - basic physics.

Plasma exists, you know because you see its signature, there is a lot of gas too, we know because light passes through but, gas isnt 'cold' plasma it's gas - read carefully section above link "Degree of Ionization"

There is a great deal of plasma around but, it is visible *because* it is an excited (ie Hot) state of matter - by definition but, it radiates energy & return to gas unless 're-ionized' - how ?

Your definition of plasma differs as u suggest its invisible ?
How can this be - is the question too simple to be considered by you cantdrive85 ?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
With all due respect MM, I answered your question here;
Please first cantdrive85 review the accepted definition of Plasma, fairly well presented here:-
http://en.wikiped...physics)

You'd prefer the definition provided by wiki rather than the plasma resources page at Lawrence Livermore National Lab that I provided above? It should be noted there is active scientific censorship taking place on wiki as can be seen here;

http://www.libert...nection/
There is a small insular group of "scientists" who benefit from a misunderstanding of plasma, it's in their best interests to obfuscate the truth.
Plasma ranges from near absolute zero to many millions of degrees and yes plasma can be "invisible". There are three modes of plasma, arc, glow, and dark mode and dark mode is "invisible" so to speak. Interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space

The wiki definition is limited at best.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014
cantdrive85 claim 1
There is a small insular group of "scientists" who benefit from a misunderstanding of plasma, it's in their best interests to obfuscate the truth.
Sheer RUBBISH, how so precisely do they benefit ?
Do they write text books confirming or arguing the DEFINITION of plasma as accepted in texts ?

cantdrive85 claim 2
..plasma resources page at Lawrence Livermore National Lab..
If you mean plasmadictionary.llnl.gov
Then, NO reference to "dark mode", "invisible" etc

cantdrive85 claim 3
The wiki definition is limited at best.
NO. More than sufficient for the non-scientific who gloss over details as sadly, they are untrained in Science & easily misled.
.
cantdrive85 claim 4
..afraid of explanations that involve confirmation via experimentation?
cantdrive85 claims = zero

Understand cantdrive85, space is essentially a 'soft' vacuum, very low density protons doesnt mean space is plasma - you exaggerate so very wrongly, try again re good interpretation !
no fate
4.3 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014
One of the reasons I stick around here is back and forths like the one above. Both sides make valid points (why I stick around) but you guys get on each other's nerves so much that civil discource becomes unavoidably forfeit at some point in the discussion. Admittedly I am not exempt from this behaviour but I embarrass myself when I display it. One thing is clear, each of us will defend which ever theory we support as though it was our own, even when the faults are clear.

EUT, PC, GR/SR, Magnetic moment: Each one has aspects of observed reality within it's framework but not just one of them can be used to paint the big picture. The key is knowing what to apply and when and not claim your brush is the only one to paint with, or try to paint a part of the picture that someone elses brush works better on.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
Do they write text books confirming or arguing the DEFINITION of plasma as accepted in texts ?

Yes, not so much the definition but the characteristics. Textbooks still use "models we know to be wrong from experimentation". The ideal MHD models of ionized gas in use by the "standard" theory does not predict many aspects of plasma such as currents (non-local transport), double layers, instabilities and more. It has been shown through failed efforts to produce continuous fusion that the theory (Ideal MHD) is incorrect, as according to that theory magnetically confined fusion should have been possible. Indeed, nuclear physicists no longer rely on those MHD models, since the " thermonuclear crisis" that Alfven mentioned (and was a part of) they have used the particle/circuit models that are currently in use today. As Alfven mentioned, astrophysics hasn't experienced a similar "crisis" as shown by this "unexpected" discovery.
http://physics.ap...s/v6/131
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2014
@cd
Textbooks still use "models we know to be wrong from experimentation"

speculation
show PROOF of the basis of this claim
The ideal MHD models of ionized gas in use by the "standard" theory does not predict many aspects of plasma such as currents (non-local transport), double layers, instabilities and more

again, speculation on your part
show PROOF
It has been shown through failed efforts to produce continuous fusion

Alfie never produced continuous fusion either
so you are speculating
also- nuclear physics uses plasma physics

in re: you link
you are making assumptions based on?
I searched the article page and found not ONE instance of the word "unexpected"
the first sentence states that there are a variety of environments of anomalously high-energy particles

therefore you are now libelous
as your baseless assumptions state something that cannot be proven

you continually assert that modern scientists dont know/understand plasma physics
and offer zero evidence
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
Textbooks still use "models we know to be wrong from experimentation"


speculation
show PROOF of the basis of this claim

The ideal MHD models of ionized gas in use by the "standard" theory does not predict many aspects of plasma such as currents (non-local transport), double layers, instabilities and more


again, speculation on your part
show PROOF

The MHD models are what is taught in the textbooks, that's not speculation. As a matter of fact, 8th grade wiki agrees with both of my statements.
http://en.wikiped...dynamics

It says;
" because MHD is relatively simple and captures many of the important properties of plasma dynamics it is often qualitatively accurate and is almost invariably the first model tried."

and goes on...
"Effects which are essentially kinetic and not captured by fluid models include double layers, Landau damping, a wide range of instabilities, chemical separation in space plasmas and electron runaway."
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
Problem is, those DL's, damping, instabilities, ordering, acceleration of particles, and the Kirchhoff's circuit laws that describe these phenomenon are completely ignored. This is why the particle/circuit models used by Alfven's PC are vital. When those phenomenon and their related effects are considered many answers and solutions are forthcoming. No magic need be induced, the only consideration is that the entirety of the environment be considered. Take for example Peratt's P-I-C models of interacting plasmas, the entire life cycle of galaxies is demonstrated including the radiation, rotation, morphology, and specific objects such as neutral HI clouds all without the need for dark matter or black holes. Incomplete MHD models can't do this, so DM is invoked.

"In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents." Hannes Alfven, Nobel Laureate

http://www.plasma...PS-I.pdf
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2014
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2014
it is often qualitatively accurate and is almost invariably the first model tried

@cd
notice it says the first model tried
NOT the ONLY model tried
again, this only reinforces my assertion that you are making assumptions that modern cosmology has not evolved in 30+ years
and goes on...

see above
http://www.plasma...PS-I.pdf

and
Part two;
http://www.plasma...S-II.pdf

known CRACKPOT SITES

why not post from other studies that may support your hypothesis?
Right!
There ARE none
DM is invoked

DM is an observed measured phenomenon that we have yet to explain
not an invoked hypothetical construct

http://www.nasa.g...ter.html

note that i DIDN'T use a CRACKPOT site
like you keep linking to

try it sometime
then maybe you will get more listeners
yep
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2014
"DM is an observed measured phenomenon that we have yet to explain
not an invoked hypothetical construct"
The irony of this statement is that big bang is a hypothetical construct which leads to DM.
Big bang is a priori on which our current realities are based. Because of this we have created a universe of black holes, DM, DE and other ridiculous tripe, but hey it makes for good tv.
Unfortunately for us Plasma does not follow our nice neat rules of math "Non-Maxwellian" and most people have a very limited understanding what it is and the diversity of states it exists in as evidenced by the comments above.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2014
@yep
The irony of this statement is that big bang is a hypothetical construct which leads to DM.

BB is a model supported by modern physics, but it is not perfect, so the point is?
Big bang is a priori on which our current realities are based

not all theory are "based" upon BB, but rather have a founding in solid experimental/observational demonstrations/data and modern physics
Because of this we have created a universe of black holes, DM, DE and other ridiculous tripe, but hey it makes for good tv.

personal conjecture

like I said "DM is an observed measured phenomenon that we have yet to explain, not an invoked hypothetical construct"
and much like the above article, is founded in modern particle physics and observations

do you have evidence to support the contrary?
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 26, 2014
@yep
The irony of this statement is that big bang is a hypothetical construct which leads to DM.

BB is a model supported by modern physics, but it is not perfect, so the point is?

Cap'n. I believe his point/perspective is that DM is a theoretical model based up another model (BB) whose properties MIGHT (but not definitely)be answered by validation of DM model. Perplexing, isn't it...:-)
Big bang is a priori on which our current realities are based
not all theory are "based" upon BB, but rather have a founding in solid experimental/observational demonstrations/data and modern physics

But still yet considered only as a "model" (possibility). Most likely one, if you will.
It all comes down to what an individual has been conditioned to believe.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2014
@Whydening Gyre
Cap'n. I believe his point/perspective is that DM is a theoretical model based up another model (BB) whose properties MIGHT (but not definitely)be answered by validation of DM model. Perplexing, isn't it...

But DM is not a theoretical model any more than Florida is... :-)
DM is an observed measured phenomenon that we have yet to explain, not an invoked hypothetical construct
and it is not based on the BB
that is what I dont understand and why I said what I did...
we have measured DM, and used DM for gravitational lensing. We know there is something there, we just cant tell you what it is, and therefore it gets a name like DM, but the name it has now is simply a placeholder
very much like the variable X in algebra, it is simply an undefined object with which we now must find the value of... we know some properties, but not all.
yep
1 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2014
To the extent that the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality. - Albert Einstein

The basis for our current understanding is the miraculous creation story "the accepted gravitational cosmology of the big bang" which gives rise to erroneous claims such as black holes, dark energy, dark matter etc.

Gravitational lensing came into effect to stop redshift/distance from being falsified. (what high redshift quasar in the nucleus of a low red shift galaxy... no they are not connected that's just light bending) Good thing we got variables and placeholders or we might have to admit we were wrong the last eighty plus years.

Dark Matter is a concoction of supposition and computation.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
To the extent that the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality. - Albert Einstein


I believe this was the more accurate one -
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are
certain, they do not refer to reality."

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
@yep
Dark Matter is a concoction of supposition and computation

see comments above and links below about DM

http://science.ho...tter.htm

http://www.space....ion.html

"the accepted gravitational cosmology of the big bang" which gives rise to erroneous claims

relativity gives rise to black holes, not the BB
Gravitational lensing came into effect to stop redshift/distance from being falsified

nope. Gravitational lensing was predicted by relativity and was used to prove relativity correct
see section TESTS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY at the link below

https://en.wikipe...lativity

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
@yep
Dark Matter is a concoction of supposition and computation

see comments above and links below about DM

http://science.ho...tter.htm


A link to spacekids? At least you're consistent, mentality wise.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
@cd
A link to spacekids?

the link uses REAL references like

http://map.gsfc.n...ter.html

to explain where the data comes from

unlike your EU CRACKPOT sites
which mostly reference only themselves or outdated/outmoded science/models
kinda like creationists, but worse

also, the link is valid and explains DM effectively
it does so in simple easy to understand terminology
you will also notice I used more than one link
there are plenty more that support the comments as well
but I figured these two would suffice
At least you're consistent, mentality wise

and the links i used refer to REAL SCIENCE
and use REAL REFERENCES

please feel free to add relevant data to the subject as long as it is from a reputable site and contains real peer reviewed references
and not CRACKPOT PSEUDO-SCIENCE
thanks
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
Blah, blah, blah,...
I'll take the experimental based reality to your unfalsifiable clap trap any day. I could careless that you THINK that is real science, but to be sure it is theoretical mumbo jumbo.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2014
@cantdrive
unfortunately for you, the standard model IS the experimental based reality
...it is the EU hypothesis that is CRACKPOT PSEUDO-SCIENCE

feel free to refute all you want, just use legitimate empirical data and references that pertain to REAL SCIENCE

what claims are you having problems with?
Dark matter?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2014
Blah, blah, blah,...
should have stopped there, with your fingers placed firmly over your eyes while chanting. It is what your argument is worth.
I could careless that you THINK that is real science,
Oh so you care some then? Because you could care less, that suggests you care somewhat. Your words are careless, and I sense a large degree of desperation.
but to be sure it is theoretical mumbo jumbo.
And yet better than any EU argument.
It is interesting to watch as you devolve into name calling and innuendo when your belief is seriously challenged. I suspect you will fall back to your usual tactic; post on every article that even hints at magnetism that your pretend theory is real in the hopes of ensnaring those who do not take the time to look at your claim and the claims of your pseudo-scientific bedfellows with a critical eye. I hope you at least get a small stipend from the booksales you are trying to generate.