Study shows most water in lunar soil generated by solar wind, not result of comet or meteorite impacts

October 7, 2014 by Bob Yirka report
This is a composite image of the lunar nearside taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in June 2009, note the presence of dark areas of maria on this side of the moon. Credit: NASA

(Phys.org) —A pair of researchers with the Sorbonne Universités, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, has determined that most of the water in the soil on the surface of the moon was formed due to protons in the solar wind colliding with oxygen in lunar dust, rather than from comet or meteorite impacts. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Alice Stephant and François Robert describe their study and the results they found.

When NASA astronauts brought back soil and rock samples from the moon, it was assumed by most in the scientific community that everything they found was dry—that there was no in any of it. Subsequent analysis using newer techniques has revealed that not only is there water beneath the in some places, but the dust on the surface also has small amounts as well. Once this became known, most scientists assumed the water got there due to comet or —in this new effort, the research pair suggests that conventional thinking is wrong once again and that the water, at least in the surface dust, comes about due to the impact of on tiny dust particles.

In studying tiny grains of lunar soil samples, the researchers found that the reduction of oxygen from silicates in the soil by protons from the solar wind was almost certainly the means by which the water was generated. They came to that conclusion through determining the lithium isotope ratio in the samples (plagioclase rock found on the surface of the moon) which gave the isotope ratio for the hydrogen—from that they were able to calculate the deuterium-hydrogen ratio which they compared to the amount of water actually in the granule sample. They found that on average, the granules contained just 15 percent water from somewhere else (presumably comets or meteorites) leaving the rest to have been formed due to the solar wind interaction. They note also that for some samples, all of the water was due to solar wind interaction.

The duo is quick to point out that their conclusions only relate to water found on the surface of the moon—where the water below the surface came from is still up for conjecture.

Explore further: Solar wind particles likely source of water locked inside lunar soils

More information: The negligible chondritic contribution in the lunar soils water, Alice Stephant, PNAS, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1408118111

Abstract
Recent data from Apollo samples demonstrate the presence of water in the lunar interior and at the surface, challenging previous assumption that the Moon was free of water. However, the source(s) of this water remains enigmatic. The external flux of particles and solid materials that reach the surface of the airless Moon constitute a hydrogen (H) surface reservoir that can be converted to water (or OH) during proton implantation in rocks or remobilization during magmatic events. Our original goal was thus to quantify the relative contributions to this H surface reservoir. To this end, we report NanoSIMS measurements of D/H and 7Li/6Li ratios on agglutinates, volcanic glasses, and plagioclase grains from the Apollo sample collection. Clear correlations emerge between cosmogenic D and 6Li revealing that almost all D is produced by spallation reactions both on the surface and in the interior of the grains. In grain interiors, no evidence of chondritic water has been found. This observation allows us to constrain the H isotopic ratio of hypothetical juvenile lunar water to δD ≤ −550‰. On the grain surface, the hydroxyl concentrations are significant and the D/H ratios indicate that they originate from solar wind implantation. The scattering distribution of the data around the theoretical D vs. 6Li spallation correlation is compatible with a chondritic contribution <15%. In conclusion, (i) solar wind implantation is the major mechanism responsible for hydroxyls on the lunar surface, and (ii) the postulated chondritic lunar water is not retained in the regolith.

Related Stories

A wet Moon

March 26, 2014

The Moon's status as a "dry" rock in space has long been questioned. Competing theories abound as to the source of the H20 in the lunar soil, including delivery of water to the Moon by comets.

Digging deep in search of water on the moon

May 19, 2014

One of the main aims of the Apollo missions of the 1960s was to determine whether the moon had any water on it. If man were to build a colony on the moon, having water present would make living there easier.

Water in the solar system predates the Sun

September 25, 2014

Water was crucial to the rise of life on Earth and is also important to evaluating the possibility of life on other planets. Identifying the original source of Earth's water is key to understanding how life-fostering environments ...

Recommended for you

Rosetta captures comet outburst

August 25, 2016

In unprecedented observations made earlier this year, Rosetta unexpectedly captured a dramatic comet outburst that may have been triggered by a landslide.

Rocky planet found orbiting habitable zone of nearest star

August 24, 2016

An international team of astronomers including Carnegie's Paul Butler has found clear evidence of a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our Solar System. The new world, designated Proxima b, orbits its cool ...

75 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2014
What an interesting concept …

See https://www.youtu...M#t=1402
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2014
What an interesting concept …

See https://www.youtu...M#t=1402


Pseudoscience crap---and that was within the first 30 seconds.
britton_beckham
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2014

Pseudoscience crap---and that was within the first 30 seconds.


The articles supporting the EU just keep coming out, almost too fast to believe... and yet we still have flat-earthers that can't accept a new paradigm. Tradition is a hard thing to let go :*(
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2014
What an interesting concept …

See https://www.youtu...M#t=1402


Pseudoscience crap---and that was within the first 30 seconds.


LOL! You're a douche Vietvet! The first 43 seconds are pics of comets and credits.
Its obvious you're a troll so stay off the boards!
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
What an interesting concept …

See https://www.youtu...M#t=1402


Pseudoscience crap---and that was within the first 30 seconds.



LOL! You're a douche Vietvet! The first 43 seconds are pics of comets and credits.
Its obvious you're a troll so stay off the boards!


All I needed was the title.

Posting pseudoscience nonsense is trollish behavior but you're too much a troll to realize that.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2014
Re: "Pseudoscience crap---and that was within the first 30 seconds."

Do you see that little hash mark with the "t=1402" after it in the URL? That's the time marker which, had you clicked the link, would have taken you past the first 23 minutes or so, directly to the part about OH produced from silicates interacting with the solar wind's protons.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
Re: "All I needed was the title."

Sounds familiar ...

from http://www.intern...tcount=8 ...

Tim Thompson, EU critic:

"As far as I am concerned, any paper published on this topic [galaxies] in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science should be ignored ..."

"... Well, the answer is that nobody has ever read them [Peratt's papers on galactic simulations], at least nobody involved seriously in the galaxy business... "

" ... My last position at JPL before retiring was with the Evolution of Galaxies Group. Based on my experience with those astronomers & astrophysicists and their collaborators, I am quite certain that most of them do not even know that the IEEE journal exists at all ..."

These are the "critics".

Note that Peratt was able to show that electrical cosmology does not require dark matter to simulate accurate galactic rotation curves. This is the paper which Thompson invited others to ignore.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2014
From Sean Davis at the Federalist, http://thefederal...ication/ ...

"... These lovers of science don't actually love science, because science requires you to go where the evidence takes you, even if it goes against your original hypothesis ..."
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
From Sean Davis at the Federalist, http://thefederal...ication/ ...

"... These lovers of science don't actually love science, because science requires you to go where the evidence takes you, even if it goes against your original hypothesis ..."


There is no evidence for EU but it and it's proponents are good for a laugh.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2014
Re: "There is no evidence for EU …"

Actually, a number of problems in the planetary sciences are basically intractable without recourse to electric discharge machining. The most serious one is that of the crater chains — which are observed on numerous solar system bodies. And the most problematic observation of crater chains is that of Phobos. Neither collapsing lava tubes (fluid flow?!) nor the breakup of impacting bodies can believably explain the numerous streaks of neatly spaced craters that cover Phobos on both sides.

In fact, the claim that the Martian crater chains resulted from lava tubes is just as laughable, as the lava would have had to have been 2 kilometers deep in places!

And not only that, but where is all of the rubble that such an awesome structure would necessarily leave?

EDM's addition to the planetary sciences toolbox is an inevitability, because there will prove to be no other way to explain these observations.
Vietvet
4 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
"no other way to explain these observations."

The observations are easily explained, your believe in EU is not.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
Re the EU crap, that is official: there is no evidence for EU. (Random links is not peer reviewed research). It would be fringe anyway, with no likelihood of success: http://en.wikiped...DM_model , with no well researched contenders.

Personal, fringe and pseudoscience crap only interests crackpots, trolling only interests troll. And now back to actual science:

This result means the derived water content of the Moon is in question, I think. A little dent in planetesimal water delivery model. On the other hand, we now know water was present even before the disk formed.*

* Re flat Earth/EU pseudoscience, I note it is gravitationally delivered. =D
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
The articles supporting the EU just keep coming out
@britton_beckham
key word being ARTICLES, not science or studies
the main reason? eu does not take into consideration some impoortant aspects of reality, like gravity. eu is written by electrical engineers who have no real knowledge of astrophysics, which is why they can't get published in astrophysics journals
an engineer well versed in plasma is not the same thing as an astrophysicist (who, contrary to popular eu lies, is not trained in plasma physics)
This is like saying that a mechanic well versed in Toyota is the same thing as an engineer developing a rocket booster
Tradition is a hard thing to let go
there is only SCIENCE

when the eu can actually convince the rest of the astrophysics world while presenting empirical evidence that is relevant then things will change...
BUT
to do that, they will have to re-write everything because right now their faith has physics violating BS in it
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
A person can really get a strong feel here for what is wrong with scientific discourse today:

- New observations (OH from solar protons & silicate oxygen) which very obviously support an against-the-mainstream theory (electric comet theory) are basically ignored, in favor of the textbook theory — perhaps the strongest argument against positivist, rote memorization-based education I've seen.

- Over-reliance upon peer review as a system for resolving controversies, and we are to apparently assume that peer reviewers lack the arrogance which appears present in a large percentage of online scientific discourse.

- An abundance of labels which are used to such an extent to mean so many things that they have by now lost their meaning: pseudoscience, fringe, crackpots, trolling.

- Non-responses like "The observations are easily explained, your believe in EU is not." are commonplace.

- Refusal to hear out arguments which do not conform to textbook theory.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2014
These are the "critics"
@Han
please note that the "critics" are also mostly ASTROPHYSICISTS or work in the field of ASTROPHYSICS
I put that in capitols so that you can google it
like I told britton_b
an engineer well versed in plasma is not the same thing as an astrophysicist (who, contrary to popular eu lies, is not trained in plasma physics)
This is like saying that a mechanic well versed in Toyota is the same thing as an engineer developing a rocket booster
now about
This is the paper which Thompson invited others to ignore
Please also note that Tim Thompson has debunked eu on his site as well, including refuting Peratt et al, with actual astrophysics
Heck, your Scott couldn't even get the research right
http://www.tim-th...l_1.html

This is not a religious forum inviting any unsubstantiated opinion and consider it valid because it is a personal faith/belief... this is supposed to be a science site, where you validate what you say with evidence..
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
A person can really get a strong feel here for what is wrong with scientific discourse today
@han
especially when conversing with people who are supporting a known pseudoscience like eu philosophy
Over-reliance upon peer review as a system for resolving controversies
no. it is the fact that SCIENCE has a peer reviewed system that works fairly well (not perfect) but eu doesn't... AND... no one from eu posts peer reviewed studies that are published in reputable journals with an impact in astrophysics because THERE ARE NONE
so it is a case of peer reviewed scientific studies against conjecture without evidence
Non-responses like "The observations are easily explained, your believe in EU is not." are commonplace
people get tired of repeating themselves over and over to people who refuse to learn
Refusal to hear out arguments which do not conform to textbook theory
should be "refusal to hear out arguments that are personal conjecture or pseudoscience"
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
An abundance of labels which are used to such an extent to mean so many things that they have by now lost their meaning: pseudoscience, fringe, crackpots, trolling
@han
they lost their meaning?
only to those who are bombarded with them every time they post...
we are to apparently assume that peer reviewers lack the arrogance which appears present in a large percentage of online scientific discourse
Sigh... http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
New observations (OH from solar protons & silicate oxygen) which very obviously support an against-the-mainstream theory
but are also included and known in current theory
the strongest argument against positivist, rote memorization-based education I've seen
PO is not a research site, either
the known science has known empirical evidence supporting it while conjecture from pseudoscience does NOT

therein lies a big difference

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
Re: "All I needed was the title."
Sounds familiar ...
from http://www.intern...tcount=8 ...
Tim Thompson, EU critic:
@han
if you will also take note: Thompson was also correct in his debunking of eu... not only correct, but supported his conclusions with empirical evidence that is also open so that everyone else can look it up for themselves

there is also the fact that, even though people like cantthink LOVE to publicly criticise here on the interwebz, they refuse to get out in public and try to debate with modern physicists!

sure, they have more ability to cherry pick and data mine on the net, but the point is: eu acolytes like to think that they are supporting science... but if that were the case
THIS NEXT PART IS VERY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER
if that was the case, they would support the science that debunks their precious faith just as much as the crap that they believe supports it

this is NEVER SEEN
especially here on PO
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
The idea that the EU has been debunked is only in your feeble mind, oh and that of Timmy's also feeble mind...

HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
Re: "we are to apparently assume that peer reviewers lack the arrogance which appears present in a large percentage of online scientific discourse …" to which you responded "Sigh... http://phys.org/n...firstCmt"

And at that link, it states: "Let's be very clear – to deny the science of climate change is to believe in a conspiracy. It may be thought of as a conspiracy between scientists and 'the left', the UN, or all of them, but it is a necessary part of any such position."

Then, the article goes on to conflate scientists trying to secure funding with conspiracy …!

They state: "Premise C, the conspiracy position, is that scientists are motivated to increase their funding (or support a green ideology, or both) by making extreme and unwarranted predictions about the dire consequences of global warming."

It's interesting — in a logical fail sort of way — how the person neatly categorizes all of the arguments, but then nevertheless conflates the categories …

wtf?!
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
What is the sense of demanding that ideas be peer-reviewed, but then conflating conspiracy with scientists trying to get funding? You just cited an argument which has very obviously NOT been peer-reviewed, as these are widely recognized as two completely distinct issues.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
and that of Timmy's also feeble mind...
@cd
you forgot about the rest of modern astrophysicists
you never coud do anything to refute Thompson but call names

It's interesting — in a logical fail sort of way — how the person neatly categorizes all of the arguments, but then nevertheless conflates
@halfvie
you didn't understand it, did you?
it's ok... you can tell by the comments below it that there are a lot of those troll type deniers of reality that didn't get it, and literally use the exact same arguments he mentions above in the article (like you just did)
You just cited an argument which has very obviously NOT been peer-reviewed, as these are widely recognized as two completely distinct issues
you are right about one thing: i cited an article that was not peer reviewed
my motivation was to get you to see the logical fallacy you are beginning from. Argument from ignorance or conspiracy (you choose)

so...is science is against your eu? or just astrophysicists?
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
Re: "my motivation was to get you to see the logical fallacy you are beginning from. Argument from ignorance or conspiracy (you choose)"

You seem to not understand what associative coherence is. If I tell you that Hitler was a great father, you will feel a sense of discordance. You are not the only one. Most people will have the same essential response — which arrives in the form of a feeling — to that sentence.

Is it a conspiracy?

No, it's your subconscious mind. Notice that as we are talking here, you are not actively thinking about where your next meal will come from, if an airplane is going to crash through your ceiling, if you might lose your job tomorrow.

Why not?

Because your subconscious handles these "lower level concerns". In a sense, we are all hardcoded in much the same way, in that we all have a subconscious mind which — without any effort on our own part — is actively keeping us alive and out of harm's way.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
Your subconscious mind is actively feeding you commentary through your feelings (some people call it the "lizard brain"). You cannot even stop it if you tried. If I tell you, whatever you do, to not think of a pink elephant … Well, oops. You just thought of it -- as well as any feelings you might already have associated with pink elephants. You FELT the whole package.

This is the subject of Daniel Kahneman's now-famous book, _Thinking, Fast and Slow_. The fast part of your thinking happens through these feelings, whereas the slow part is your rational thought. Rational thinking is slow because it requires a bit of effort to get it right.

Kahneman likes to say that the rational mind (which he calls "system 2") is "lazy". So, the way our minds work is we try to actively avoid rational thought when we think we can get away with it.

Would anybody really spend any time investigating whether or not Hitler was a good father? No, you FEEL that it is not true, so why bother?
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
Associative coherence is basically a believable narrative. Given two different details about something, your subconscious mind — without any energy expenditure on your part, or even say in whether or not it will do it — will pop into your head whether or not the narrative is believable.

Hitler and 'good father' fails the test.

Now, notice that it DID NOT TAKE TWO PEOPLE CONSPIRING to make that happen. It was just you, and really, the person who you imagine yourself to be — your rational mind — wasn't even involved. It was that other guy — the "voice" in your head — which offered the opinion. And your rational mind then decided whether or not it would go with the suggestion.

Many people simply imagine that their rational minds keep them alive. But, it really only takes a little bit of thought to see that this is not the case at all. People who talk about how conspiracies are the only explanation for mistakes in science do not understand what associative coherence is.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
I'm going to say something now which is going to cause an immediate emotional response:

You are wasting your time talking and thinking about complex scientific controversies without spending just as much time learning how your mind works.

The reason is that you are mixing together your feelings and your rational thoughts. They are very hard to distinguish once a person recognizes that there is a distinction. But, you've not even made it to this point yet of distinguishing them at all.

People can read it in every single sentence that you write, because you write about science with EMOTION, rather than as a rational thinker. That's a huge red flag for anybody who has already done their homework on how their own minds work.

You need to study this video as many times as it takes to fully assimilate it into your thinking:

https://www.youtu...utgSwY88

Until then, you are literally wasting your time online. And I'm pretty sure that most people can see it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2014
If I tell you that Hitler was a great father, you will feel a sense of discordance
@alfvie
not really. i know that people also have public and private lives, especially politicians
Why not?
erm, i do think abut my next meal, i don't care if a plane hits and i don't have a job.

just being facetious, btw
Would anybody really spend any time investigating whether or not Hitler was a good father?
someone like me would. someone like a scientist in search of the correct answers would

so basically all this was to show that you are coming from the argument from ignorance?
back that up: eu is multiple people with the intent on making money by convincing others to believe what they say based upon their personal delusions is real and scientific. *that* is what makes eu a conspiracy...

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2014
You are wasting your time talking and thinking about complex scientific controversies without spending just as much time learning how your mind works
@alfvie
psyche major
The reason is that you are mixing together your feelings and your rational thoughts
your conjecture
because you write about science with EMOTION, rather than as a rational thinker
i write about science based upon my writing style... it sucks, i know
deal with it
study this video
you've already linked it

you assume that I write with emotion. How do you know that I am not writing in a manner designed to elicit a response from others in a particular way in order to make them move in a manner that I am predicting will happen?

just think on that for a spell.

as for eu: i still do not believe it.
there is a preponderance of science against it
maybe not as much as the science for AGW, but definitely enough to classify it as a pseudoscience.

britton_beckham
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
@Captain and @Vietvet

You both claim science science science!!! But you yourselves are not showing forth any nature of scientific interest. To be a scientist, one does not need letters after their name, or even a degree. One only needs to ask questions and have a willingness to search for truth.

I might also ask, why so much disdain for EU or their theories? With the amount of negativity you display towards it, it would appear you must have personally exhausted any idea that the EU could potentially shed light on the problems of current theories through your own research and studies. Is this true? If so, I would no doubt assume you have laboriously reviewed and dissected all the EU research and evidence currently available in a personal effort to understand it. Is this also true? Moreover, you must also have come face to face with the peer reviews that openly present the unanswered problems that are associated with the currently accepted models. I ask, is that true? What say ye?
DeliriousNeuron
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014


What an interesting concept …

See https://www.youtu...M#t=1402


Pseudoscience crap---and that was within the first 30 seconds.



LOL! You're a douche Vietvet! The first 43 seconds are pics of comets and credits.
Its obvious you're a troll so stay off the boards!


All I needed was the title.

Posting pseudoscience nonsense is trollish behavior but you're too much a troll to realize that.


All u needed was the title? See ....u are a douche!
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2014
Stumpydick and vietvet won't answer. Your questions requires brain power.
Vietvet
4 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
@britton beckam
@DeliriuosNeuron

There is NO F##KING EVIDENCE supporting EU.

It"s that simple.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
you yourselves are not showing forth any nature of scientific interest
@brit
since when is the blind acceptance of a pseudoscience considered "showing forth any nature of scientific interest"? You wouldn't allow a Toyota mechanic to design your multi-stage rocket system for a moon shot, so why let an engineer do astrophysics?
To be a scientist, one does not need letters after their name, or even a degree
but one SHOULD have a foundation in the subject at hand... and engineer's do NOT have astrophysical knowledge! therein lies my argument. that is also why the astrophysical world has judged EU to be crackpot pseudoscience
http://www.tim-th...sun.html
have you READ what eu is proposing? and you agree that there is plausibility even considering all the physics violating proposals?

tell you what: i will give you the same advice I gave Hat:
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

learn the basics so you don't get trolled

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
I might also ask, why so much disdain for EU or their theories?
@brit
not all of them... SOME of their stuff has merit... but if you would read their site(s) you would find that the EU is proposing some really stupid stuff: that violates physics
See their proposals about the grand canyon and moon craters (we've OBSERVED asteroids etc hitting the moon... it is NOT plasma discharges forming those craters)
you have laboriously reviewed and dissected all the EU research
not all of it, but a large enough sampling to know that the bulk is BS, just like the bulk of aw/daw is BS.
and when a philosophy has a foundation that is fallacious, you don't need to pull the further research to know that it will be fallacious, you know
What say ye?
let the peer review do it's job and the scientists do their job
I am patient enough to wait and see what ends up being legitimate and what doesn't
(like the electric moon craters cd suggested)
I can also spot a fallacy when based upon another
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
You both claim
@brit
last thing... You bring up some good questions
you should also be asking the EU about justifying THEIR belief system as well

point is: if they can only self reference, or reference a site that is not astrophysics or has an impact therein, or if their extrapolations defy the known laws of physics, or they've based on-going research upon a fallacious premiss as well as faulty logic, then there should be justification and proof presented that is equivalent to the evidence that is against it.

this is the major failing of eu

When presented with empirical evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source with a high impact in astrophysics, their refute is to quote an engineer at thunderbutts or the latest eu site (intentional misspelling)
this is NOT evidence, this is pseudoscience
it is also why I (and other astro/physicists) advocate their dismissal as being science

now do you get it?

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
Stumpydick and vietvet won't answer. Your questions requires brain power.
Hey Groupie!
i thought you were forgetting all about science and simply trolling only me? I thought you said
I'm just gonna troll you exclusively from now on ok Stumpydick? Don't be mad! Screw science for now!
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

let me clarify this for my special GROUPIE:
Youtube is NOT a valid reference for science
I wouldn't even accept a youtube from MIT unless it was specifically linked THROUGH a study
in which case, it is STILL not a reference. it would be supplemental data within a study
and if it IS within a study, the reference SHOULD be the STUDY, not the video.

Even the MODS agreed with this argument as I just had it with Zephir here: http://phys.org/n...ght.html

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
yep
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
http://worldnpa.o...6439.pdf
EU theory is constantly proven, the above post is an excellent example you like to ignore, try reading Hannes's post over and let those ideas sink in.
Standard theory's get so many free passes when falsified by "empirical data" it's ridiculous.
Vietvet
4 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2014
"EU theory is constantly proven,---"

Thanks, yep!

I needed a good laugh and your statement is the funniest thing I've read all day.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
Standard theory's get so many free passes when falsified by "empirical data" it's ridiculous
@yep
and you have empirical evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source that has an impact in astrophysics supporting this conclusion?

I don't ignore empirical evidence that is reputable or relevant
and just because something is possible doesn't mean that it is empirical proof that it is the cause, only that it is POSSUBLE

how many times do I have to drill that into your thick skull?
it is POSSIBLE that you can fit an entire monkey up your NOSE as well, but that doesn't mean that there is one up there! (and if you DO have one up there, please refrain from letting us know...)

the point is- there are a LOT of possibilities out there
what you have never PROVEN is that something happened BY OBSERVATION or by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE including forensic evidence (which would be present on the moon craters as well as the grand canyon)

NOW do you get it?
yep
1 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
I get it, empirical evidence is only valid if it conforms to your belief system.
http://benthamope...OAAJ.pdf
http://www.ieeeex...ischarge
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=50xuWMjJ3ws
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
I get it, empirical evidence is only valid if it conforms to your belief system.
http://benthamope...OAAJ.pdf
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=50xuWMjJ3ws


So, do you have any evidence at all?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
http://www.ieeeex...ischarge
@yep
IEEE is an engineering publication with low to no impact in astrophysicists, which is why eu pushes for publication of astrophysics articles in the paper
This means there are no peer's to review it and therefore it is NOT a reputable site for astrophysics, as proven time and again by posting comments from other astrophysicists which have explained this to you...

Therefore your IEEE link with an astrophysics paper has all the same authority as linking to a pseudoscience site

sorry sparky, try that one again from a reputable site that actually has an impact in astrophysics, because IEEE is not reputable

and as for youtube? youtube is NOT a reference
if that youtube video is linked to a study, i would suggest you linking the study here and skip the theatrics of youtube, which can be too easily manipulated
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2014
This means there are no peer's to review it and therefore it is NOT a reputable site for astrophysics

That's why this is published in an IEEE journal, because as you say, there are no peer's to review it. The paper is about electric discharge in plasma, something astrophysicists know absolutely nothing about.

BTW, this is not an astrophysics paper anyway, this is a atmospheric/planetary science issue. Why don't you try to stay on topic. Right, too stupid, you don't even grasp the basics.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2014
Only mental midgets believe in EU.

yep
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2014
http://www.irf.se...t284.pdf
http://www.ursi.o...1784.pdf
http://www.nature...9a0.html
http://journals.a...6.125001
How can you read publications like these, or the article above, and not consider the validity of an Electric Universe.

The you tube video was a goofy monkey cartoon, it was funny because of your post, thought you might enjoy it.

Trap any one in your delusions lately V? With the reindeer games you like to play, it is obvious your mental weight is dense.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
The paper is about electric discharge in plasma, something astrophysicists know absolutely nothing about
@cd
you've already been shown more than 10 times that this comment is absolutely false, and you continue to promote this as eu propaganda

unfortunately, you are too stupid to find the truth for yourself. Refute to the comment: http://www.pppl.gov/
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

please show a modern astrophysics curriculum that does not include plasma physics
(you can't because there isn't one)
Therefore we can see that there is empirical evidence that you are blatantly lying and pushing propaganda

Is this the only eu tactic?
too stupid, you don't even grasp the basics
this is rich considering that you cling to a fallacious belief that is more than 40 years old and debunked already
thanks for sharing though

P.S. @yep
thought you might enjoy it
I went back and watched that video
i DID enjoy it, thank you
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
How can you read publications ...validity of an Electric Universe
@yep
i have said before and I will say it again: there is some valid physics in the eu, but not all of it is valid

I don't believe in the eu as it has been publicly debunked by physicists, astrophysicists as well as empirical evidence
The eu philosophy as it is published on sites etc right now is bunk

the papers that are peer reviewed, relevant, and impact astrophysics as well as published in reputable journals that have an impact in astrophysics etc are another thing entirely.

Until eu gives up it's fallacious beliefs, it taints the rest of any real science that may come of it, and therefore it is classified as a pseudoscience

Just because something looks similar doesn't mean that it is the reason for it happening
After all, a strong gust of wind can make a roof fly just as well as a tornado or attaching an engine to it
it doesn't mean that all movement of roofs is from tornado's
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2014
@cd
you've already been shown more than 10 times that this comment is absolutely false, and you continue to promote this as eu propaganda

unfortunately, you are too stupid to find the truth for yourself. Refute to the comment: http://www.pppl.gov/
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

please show a modern astrophysics curriculum that does not include plasma physics


There is nothing in your links about electric discharge, but as I said, you're too stupid to realize it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2014
you're too stupid to realize it
@cd
I see you are still having a reading comprehension problem.
If you will read the quotes: the relevant parts about what you said
...about electric discharge in plasma...astrophysicists know absolutely nothing about
and if you will note the links, they are to education resources, which prove that astrophysicists are educated in plasma physics
IOW - you made a blatantly false claim that astrophysicists don't know anything about plasma physics which, according to most common descriptions, is called a LIE

I asked you to refute this fact with modern reputable data as well

your reply was to (again) post another blatantly false conjecture (AKA - LIE)

standard eu tactic:
repeat blatantly false conjecture until someone starts to believe it
or is this a manifestation of your conspiratorial leanings?
http://www.phys.o...firstCmt
yep
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
"Time and again, astrophysicists refer to obvious electrical effects using kinetic terminology, or thermodynamic descriptions." Stephen Smith
"Students are taught that any separation of charge in space is quickly neutralized as electrons rush to neutralize the charge imbalance. As a result, electricity in space is almost never mentioned, except as a transient effect." Wal Thornhill

The tactic is to help you realize the a priori assumption modern cosmology is under. To understand the true pioneers of plasma science were ridiculed and misunderstood for decades even after their theory, were proven.
The observational evidence is overwhelming. Would it help to call it the magnetic universe for you to take another deep look into the vast amounts of data coming in like ionic rain from Saturn's rings, the cusps in the Earth's magnetosphere, oscillation behavior of pulsars, particle jets, toroidal magnetic fields, interplanetary and galactic magnetic fields, solar flare emissions?
yep
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
There are endless amounts of data that conform to an electromagnetic view. In fact much of the current Astrophysical conundra would dissipate with a mechanism to explain in-congruent calculation and observation.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2014
There are endless amounts of data that conform to an electromagnetic view. In fact much of the current Astrophysical conundra would dissipate with a mechanism to explain in-congruent calculation and observation.


Where are the peer reviewed links for your pseudoscience?
yep
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
yep
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
and if you will note the links, they are to education resources, which prove that astrophysicists are educated in plasma physics


It's a specialized "plasma physics" which astrophysicists are taught, one that DOES NOT include electric discharge phenomena. "Plasma physics" involves many specialties. The MHD models used by astrophysicists are too generalized to allow for all of the required parts for circuits that enable the electric discharge.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2014
http://adsabs.har...08..314A
The evidence is overwhelming if you perspective is not skewed by assumptions.


None of your links work.

I'm not surprised.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2014
It's a specialized "plasma physics" which astrophysicists are taught
@cd
you can prove this empirically?
you still haven't been proven that astrophysicists don't learn plasma physics and now you are changing your tune and saying they learn "special plasma physics"?
IOW - you KNOW they are learning plasma physics (which means you are admitting to being a blatant liar) but now you are saying it is special and not inclusive of all plasma physics... WTF?

ok. your assertion... not prove it
one that DOES NOT include electric discharge phenomena
again, you offer no proof, but this (again) proves that you know astrophysicists learn plasma physics
again, your own words undermine your assertions
The MHD models used by astrophysicists are too generalized to allow for all of the required parts for circuits that enable the electric discharge
now you are changing the goal post
we are talking PLASMA PHYSICS, sparky

and you can't see your own stupidity here?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2014
The MHD models used by astrophysicists are too generalized to allow for all of the required parts for circuits that enable the electric discharge
@cd
tell you what, spark-head. Lets start small
first, make a darn decision and get off the fence post: do astrophysicists learn plasma physics or not, according to your delusion?

when you make that decision: prove it

once you get past that point... get back to the issue at hand and PROVE that astrophysicists don't learn about specialised issues in plasma physics, because from what I am reading (here: http://www.pppl.gov/ ) When things are proven, or repeated experimentally etc and given a plausibility, whatever you wish to call it, that information is shared

you assume (wrongly) that astrophysicists live in some bubble of non-reality that no outside information can touch
it is SCIENCE, advancing as everything else in science does
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2014
The tactic is to help
@yep
the tactic is to constantly repeat a false assertion in order to elicit a response (TROLLING) while undermining actual science with a known pseudoscience
the true pioneers of plasma science were ridiculed... proven
no, because the relevant and proven plasma physics was incorporated into science
the only ridicule being done is to eu acolytes and electrical engineers who are trying to publish astrophysics without the knowledge needed to make logical or correct assumptions
The observational evidence is overwhelming
this is a delusion
just because something looks SIMILAR does not mean it defines the reality around you
the perfect analogy for eu vs astrophysics: Just because you can strap a jet engine to a pig doesn't mean that the pig is an airplane
it doesn't even mean that pigs can fly
it only means that the engine is no longer Kosher
got it now?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2014
Would it help to call it the magnetic universe
@yep
no
because that, too, assumes that there are no other influences
there is the UNIVERSE, and a major player (like it or not, spark-people) is gravity
this means that you MUST take it into consideration on everything
now also remember the accuracy of relativity and the constant reaffirming and proof of its accuracy (like the following: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt and http://dx.doi.org...0.030501 and http://dx.doi.org...3.120405 )
the eu conjectures do NOT take the far reaching implications into consideration

astrophysics takes plasma physics into consideration
the eu (and the ee's that conned you into believing it) did NOT take all the astrophysical implications into consideration

the most accurate descriptor is the one that considers it all (modern astrophysics)
not the one that ignores reality (eu)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
you can prove this empirically?
you still haven't been proven that astrophysicists don't learn plasma physics and now you are changing your tune
Already have, provided peer-reviewed papers and all. I never claimed they didn't learn plasma physics, I've acknowledged ALL ALONG they learn theoretical plasma physics. Just as Alfven claimed in his Nobel lecture, remember all the "too stupid to grasp the argument" comments?
now you are changing the goal post
we are talking PLASMA PHYSICS, sparky
You'd think it'd be that simple, but the astrophysicists just love their theoretical mumbo jumbo and refuse to understand/learn electric discharge.
you assume (wrongly) that astrophysicists live in some bubble of non-reality that no outside information can touch
You can believe what you like. But as Ol' Timmy Thompson and you often claim, publications put forth by IEEE are not relevant to astros even though it's still plasma physics.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2014
I never claimed they didn't learn plasma physics
@cd
so when you post alfvie quotes like
Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks.
and then quote
they learn theoretical plasma physics such as MHD models rather than the real phenomena of electric discharge in gases that have been developed in the lab
or
Because "all the astrophysicists" are taught the same false knowledge to ignore the electrical implications of plasma
you are now saying that this does not mean they don't learn plasma physics? especially when, given only a single link, it is refuted empirically? pppl.gov is enough to prove that modern plasma physics is taught to astrophysicists and debunks your whole diatribe
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2014
Already have, provided peer-reviewed papers and all
@cd
and you have never given ANY proof whatsoever that modern astrophysics students are not taught plasma physics
i have shown you repeatedly (and a good link is the PPPL link) that modern plasma physics is taught to astrophysics students... the site even talks about it
makingYOU the only one here
"too stupid to grasp the argument"

unless, of course, you are saying that your quotes are just there for window dressing and that you never agreed with them
(but i have about 5 pages of your quotes and links proving otherwise)
astrophysicists just love their theoretical mumbo jumbo and refuse to understand/learn electric discharge
personal conjecture based upon stupidity
already proved you wrong on this
publications put forth by IEEE are not relevant to astros even though it's still plasma physics
treu
but valid astrophysics and plasma physics relevant to astrophysics is disseminated by pppl as proven already

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2014
you still haven't been proven that astrophysicists don't learn plasma physics

provided peer-reviewed papers and all
@cd
personal delusion not supported by evidence
you've never been able to support the assertion that modern astrophysicists don't learn modern plasma physics
your conjecture is also proven false (repeatedly in the past, making this a blatant LIE) with this link: http://www.pppl.gov/

the burden of proof is on those who make the claims
and you've made some grandiose claims repeatedly and never offered any empirical evidence to support your assertions
This is the main problem with eu and your fanatical religious cult of acolytes proselytizing here on PO: evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source with an impact in astrophysics etc

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
@cd
personal delusion not supported by evidence
you've never been able to support the assertion that modern astrophysicists don't learn modern plasma physics

I have posted this before, and of course you came with a lame reason you don't think it's relative. All the while you just post random websites claiming it is "proof" of this or that.

http://ntrs.nasa....3880.pdf

evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source with an impact in astrophysics etc

How about a NASA conference in which he was the keynote? What lame excuse you gonna claim now?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2014
the burden of proof is on those who make the claims

Now I have presented peer reviewed empirical evidence supporting astrophysicists don't understand major tenets of real plasma physics, such as electric discharge, critical velocity, pinches, double layers, and circuits, the onus is on you to provide specific evidence that the dissemination of these topics is widespread, applied, and accepted by astrophysics programs. No general link to PPPL.gov will prove this, I need specific evidence.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2014
I have posted this before
@cd
a 30 year old speeches from a geriatric who's been proven absolutely wrong about his belief is NOT modern or legitimate proof that today's schools don't teach plasma physics
All this speech does is prove that you don't have a leg to stand on and that you don't mind quote mining ancient texts to try and come up with justification for your faith in eu
what next? you gonna quote the bible as proof of creation now?
like i have said time and again: you have NO PROOF that modern astrophysicists don't learn plasma physics, you only have a historical claim from someone whom i already proved wrong with a link to pppl, whis is not
you just post random websites claiming it is "proof"
it is empirical proof that modern astrophysics courses learn modern plasma physics
this specifically refutes your delusional eu claims from alfvie and especially you
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2014
the burden of proof is on those who make the claims

Now I have presented peer reviewed empirical evidence supporting astrophysicists don't understand major tenets of real plasma physics ...No general link to PPPL.gov will prove this, I need specific evidence.
@cd
you have given ZERO evidence of this!
in fact, the closest you can say to have come to this is a historical speech from 1986 (per the date on the NASA page and link)
and this only says that some geriatric has MADE the claim, not that there is any proof to it!
Considering your ignoring empirical evidence of REALITY here:
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
as well as here: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
the only thing you have "empirically proven" is:
1- you dont mind looking like an idiot
2- you ignore proven plasma physics when it doesn't match your faith
3- you don't mind quoting historical speeches even when it is been proven wrong
yep
1 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
All the links work fine, so take a good look as they are all peer reviewed and obvious evidence of Electric Universe theory.

Only you are assuming other influences are not taken into consideration.

Your lack of historical knowledge and ignorance of basic EU concepts is typical of main stream cosmology based in 19th century dogma. See the Smith quote above.

Just your statement about Alfven the "geriatric who's been proven absolutely wrong about his belief" shows how very little you understand or apparently want to understand because you already know the "truth."

http://vimeo.com/51967590
Vietvet
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2014
"obvious evidence of Electric Universe theory."

@yeb

Only in delusional dreams.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
in fact, the closest you can say to have come to this is a historical speech from 1986
and this only says that some geriatric has MADE the claim, not that there is any proof to it!


He didn't make the claim, somebody else did the study and he "reported" it.

And I'll appeal to authority here, the opinion of a Nobel prize winning geriatric who is largely responsible for the advancement an entire branch of physics (plasma phys) is far more valuable than the opinion of a washed up murderous ex-hose holding geriatric without even a basic understanding of the physics he's trying to tear apart.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2014
All the links work fine
@yep
they didn't when Vietvet made his post
nor did they as of last night 0100 US Pacific standard time
obvious evidence of Electric Universe theory
personal conjecture based upon your faith and delusional eu pseudoscience
ignorance of basic EU concepts is typical of main stream cosmology based in 19th century dogma
1- they don't teach pseudoscience in college
2- your conjectures about main stream cosmology are based upon conspiratorial leanings
3- eu is a debunked pseudoscience
Just your statement about ...shows how very little you understand or apparently want to understand ...
so you are saying that the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE supporting magnetic reconnection and proven worldwide through various plasma physics labs is proof that alfie was right?
WTF?
THAT comment alone substantiates my above evidence and more! it PROVES that you are willing to ignore empirical evidence for your "belief" in a pseudoscience!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2014
He didn't make the claim, somebody else did the study and he "reported" it.
@cd
then i find it even MORE amazing that you never linked that study
or is this another flight of fancy that eu tends to promote?

IF this is a study, then produce it here
the opinion of a Nobel prize winning geriatric who is largely responsible for the advancement an entire branch of physics (plasma phys) is far more valuable than the opinion of a washed up murderous ex-hose holding geriatric without even a basic understanding of the physics he's trying to tear apart.
All i have is the empirical evidence that refutes that appeal to authority and proves that, not only was the Nobel prize winner WRONG about some stuff, but that he is WRONG about modern astrophysicists
time didn't stop or reverse when he made the speech, sparkheads

empirical evidence trumps appeal to authority
EPIC LOSS for eu there
no points for the try, either
especially since it is PLASMA physics that refutes said appeal
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2014
vimeo.com
@yep
@CD
i am glad you linked this video, yep
it is very relevant to how eu argues
according to your video, we can surmise that all pigs can fly, talk and sing and that all chickens also can sing, etc
there is a video supporting your conjecture, so it MUST be true, according to the tenet's of eu and the acceptance of the loose morals that allow for even worse judgement regarding evidence

you can strap a jet engine to a pig, but that does not mean it is an airplane

you can buy a pig for a Rabbi, but that doesn't mean it is Kosher

you can watch a video about sparks making shapes in an experiment, but that doesn't mean that you can ignore the observed empirical evidence supporting craters on the moon and conjecture that all craters are made this way and that the grand canyon is made from plasma discharge

just because it LOOKS similar, does not mean it is definitively the reason for the observed phenomenon
a pic is worth 1000 words
it is NOT a study
yep
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2014
I linked the video because it had a flying pig and a serious message about food production, the inhumanity of factory farming in cramped filth. It is a travesty of Humanity that we would allow the treatment of another being, especially ones that allowed our emergence from the skin apes we are to the space apes we have become.

Captain you are welcome to stay in the gaslight era.
http://www.youtub...JiHR9Ti4

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.