Rosetta finds molecular oxygen on comet 67P (Update)

October 28, 2015
This single frame Rosetta navigation camera image of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko was taken on 7 July 2015 from a distance of 154 km from the comet centre. The image has a resolution of 13.1 m/pixel and measures 13.4 km across. Credit: ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM

Stunned scientists announced Wednesday the unexpected discovery of large quantities of oxygen on a comet which streaked past the Sun in August with a European spacecraft in tow.

The find came as a "big surprise", and challenges mainstream theories on the formation of our Solar System, said scientist Andre Bieler of the University of Michigan.

Measurements made by the Rosetta probe suggested that oxygen molecules in the 67P comet's gassy halo must have existed "before or at" its formation, he told journalists.

This may have implications for mankind's understanding of the chemistry involved in the formation of the Solar System some 4.6 billion years ago.

"We believe this oxygen is primordial, which means it is older than our Solar System," said Bieler.

Scientists had previously ruled out the presence of oxygen (O2) on comets such as 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, the subject of intensive prodding and probing by a European robot lab.

As O2 mixes easily with other elements, "we never thought that oxygen could 'survive' for billions of years" in a pristine state, said Kathrin Altwegg of the University of Bern, who co-authored a study in the journal Nature.

"This evidence of oxygen as an ancient substance will likely discredit some theoretical models of the formation of our Solar System," she said.

The comet is being tracked on its deep space journey around the Sun by the European Space Agency's Rosetta spacecraft.

The historic mission seeks to unlock the mystery of the origins of life on Earth.

Scientists believe that comets "seeded" early Earth with some of the ingredients for life.

Artist impression of ESA's Rosetta approaching comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The comet image was taken on 2 August 2014 by the spacecraft's navigation camera at a distance of about 500 km. The spacecraft and comet are not to scale. Credit: Copyright Spacecraft: ESA/ATG medialab; Comet image: ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM

The team monitored the ratio of oxygen to water on the comet for several months to see if the gas molecules would dissipate as solar winds ripped away layers of surface.

They did not—proving the oxygen was embedded in the comet, not just hanging around its surface.

Prevailing theories of the Solar System's birth posit a chaotic, collision-strewn mixing of matter flowing toward and away from the newly-formed Sun.

Pristine, icy grains containing oxygen would not have made it through such violence intact, the scientists said, leading them to speculate that the process was, in fact, "gentler".

The oxygen molecules must have "survived from the dark molecular clouds from which they were probably formed into comets as we have them today," said Altwegg.

Only twice before—on the icy moons of Jupiter and Saturn—have oxygen molecules been found in the Solar System beyond Earth's atmosphere, and never before on a comet.

Oxygen is difficult to detect with Earth-bound telescopes.

'Don't jump to conclusions'

Rosetta offered a rare opportunity to study 67P's "coma"—the envelope of dust, gas and ice that forms as it nears the Sun on an elliptical orbit.

The new data suggests that water on comets is probably the rule rather than the exception, the scientists said.

Scientists not involved in this study underlined its importance, but said more time was needed to assess the implications.

The discovery "imposes a severe constraint on the mechanism for the formation of the Solar System," said French astrophysicist Francis Rocard.

"But we shouldn't jump to conclusions," he cautioned.

Oxygen molecules were the fourth-most common gas detected in 67P's debris halo—after water, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

Their presence did not tell us anything about the origins of life on Earth, of the possibility of finding it elsewhere in the universe, Altwegg said.

In looking at exo-planets, "the combination of O2 and methane has been taken as a sign that you might have life underneath," she said.

"On this comet we have both, but we don't have life. So having oxygen may not be a very good bio-signature."

Explore further: Comet skirts past Sun with Rosetta in tow (Update)

More information: Nature, nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nature15707

Related Stories

Rosetta comet likely formed from two separate objects

September 28, 2015

The characteristic "rubber duck" shape of the comet carrying a European robot probe through space was the result of a low-velocity impact billions of years ago between two objects which fused, a study said Monday.

Rosetta hits 'milestone' in comet's run past Sun

August 13, 2015

The European space probe Rosetta captured a range of scientific data Thursday as it trailed an ancient comet past the Sun which could help scientists better understand the origins of life on Earth.

Recommended for you

Scientists sweep stodgy stature from Saturn's C ring

December 9, 2016

As a cosmic dust magnet, Saturn's C ring gives away its youth. Once thought formed in an older, primordial era, the ring may be but a mere babe – less than 100 million years old, according to Cornell-led astronomers in ...

Japan launching 'space junk' collector

December 9, 2016

Japan will launch a cargo ship Friday bound for the International Space Station, carrying a 'space junk' collector that was made with the help of a fishnet company.

Dark matter may be smoother than expected

December 7, 2016

Analysis of a giant new galaxy survey, made with ESO's VLT Survey Telescope in Chile, suggests that dark matter may be less dense and more smoothly distributed throughout space than previously thought. An international team ...

103 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

AGreatWhopper
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2015
I want a good model that explains why so many comets are dumbbell shaped.

The trolls that poo-poo'd this mission can French kiss my sweet arse.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2015
"This evidence of oxygen as an ancient substance will likely discredit some theoretical models of the formation of our Solar System," she said.


Does oxygen react with unicorns? Or does it actually need other elements to interact?

I want a good model that explains why so many comets are dumbbell shaped.


Contact Binary

Light that partially reflects off one body's inner surface hits the other, carving out more material than it would if it hit only the outside surface of one of the bodies.

This is baby stuff.
rossim22
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2015
As the article states, O2 reacts with other elemental species very easily. Rather than assuming it's primordial and some unexplainable and likely unfalsifiable method kept the molecular oxygen isolated inside of the supposed thermally fluctuating comet nucleus, perhaps it's being produced outside by an unrecognized cometary mechanism and the entire primordial dogma needs to be superseded.

Occam's razor suggests that when several hypotheses make the same prediction, that which requires the least number of assumptions should be given the most credence. The sudden release of pristine, primordial O2 and the process which kept it unreactive is just another massive, unpredicted assumption piled onto the 'ol dirty snowball theory.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2015
Which unrecognised cometary mechanism would that be? Given that the 21 complex organic molecules found on comet Lovejoy are also found in molecular clouds, is this "mechanism" also producing them? How, exactly? Also, the N2 abundance suggests that the comet formed at low temperatures. It was unpredicted, but fully in line with formation very early in solar system history.
As opposed to the totally evidence free and unscientific electric comet nonsense.
big_hairy_jimbo
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2015
So can someone explain how we know that the O2 isn't being produced chemically, say by CO2 being hit by sunlight or solar wind?? The fact that it "appeared" when the comet was close to the sun, to me hints, that the more harsh conditions around the sun may have triggered the necessary chemistry. This to me seems more plausible than pristine O2.
Hey I'm willing to learn if someone can show me how they came to the conclusion the O2 is pristine, and not due to a chemical process.

Oh never mind, I just read a bit of the Nature article!!!! The ratio of H2O to O2 was the same no matter when the comet was in relation to the sun, hence it is Primordial.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2015
So can someone explain how we know that the O2 isn't being produced chemically, say by CO2 being hit by sunlight or solar wind?? The fact that it "appeared" when the comet was close to the sun, to me hints, that the more harsh conditions around the sun may have triggered the necessary chemistry. This to me seems more plausible than pristine O2.
Hey I'm willing to learn if someone can show me how they came to the conclusion the O2 is pristine, and not due to a chemical process.

Oh never mind, I just read a bit of the Nature article!!!! The ratio of H2O to O2 was the same no matter when the comet was in relation to the sun, hence it is Primordial.


Well done for reading the paper. A bit more than our EU friends are prepared to do, or accept.
The idiot Thornhill is always right! Despite his total lack of qualifications. Not to mention the equally stupid loon Talbott.
You'd be lucky to find an EU advocate who has read a scientific paper in their lives.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2015
They haven't realised it yet, but this electric rocky comet garbage died 10 years ago, at Tempel 1. Ice grains were unambiguously seen in the ejecta from the impact at that comet. Subsequently they were seen by the same instruments at Hartley 2, in the CO2 jets from the smaller lobe of that comet. Problem is, the people who believe this rubbish are obviously, by definition, too thick to understand that it died right there and then.
rossim22
2.9 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2015
jonesdave, I do not offer an alternative hypothesis as one is not required. I am in support of the null, which concluding that sublimation of hidden interior ices by thermal radiation of the sun as the sole cause of cometary activity is a mistake.

Space science is constricted by researcher's bias and an appeal to authority, mainly due to the pressures placed on scientists to form hypotheses before accurate, in situ observations are able to be collected. Had you told Fred Whipple that comets possess a dark, dry, and hard surface way back when the dirty snowball hypothesis was formulated, you'd be ridiculed just as you try to do to others. Now every observation made, just as this article illustrates, is filtered through primordial aggregate hypotheses which may be (and likely are) wrong themselves, accredited to the fallacies ad verecundiam and ad populum.
plasmasrevenge
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2015
There is a grumpy-old-man sense to the venting on physorg about the EU, and no sense at all that anybody here has personally invested any real effort into the hard work of methodically mapping out their claims and rebuttals.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2015
jonesdave, I do not offer an alternative hypothesis. I am in support of the null, which concluding that sublimation of hidden interior ices by thermal radiation of the sun as the sole cause of cometary activity is a mistake.


Garbage. You simply don't understand what happened when an impactor smashed into Tempel 1. Ice came out. Not just H2O vapour, but solid H2O ice grains. Game over. How did the idiot Thornhill explain that away? Didn't even try. Just conned his scientifically illiterate acolytes into believing something that Pete Schultz had already predicted. An early "flash" followed by a larger one. cont.......
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2015
The "genius" Thornhill also predicted copious x-rays. Wrong. Just a delayed soft x-ray enhancement due to the interaction of the ejected material with the solar wind. Read the SWIFT and Chandra papers.
It died right there, right then. End of story.
It is a non-hypothesis. It has no evidence to back it up. Most of the idiotic nonsense that is supposed to happen at comets, according to EU, is scientifically impossible.

tl;dr? It's rubbish.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2015
There is a grumpy-old-man sense to the venting on physorg about the EU, and no sense at all that anybody here has personally invested any real effort into the hard work of methodically mapping out their claims and rebuttals.


There is plenty of evidence out there: you're all just too thick to understand it. If you could, you'd have given up on this rubbish years ago.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2015
I'll tell you how good the idiot Thornhill is; he predicted, in 2008, that Mercury would have a weak dipole gravity. Brilliant. He was right!!!!! Problem is, we effing well knew that from the Mariner mission in 1974! Guy is a con artist. Some people are more easily conned than others. He just relies on the fact that his acolytes are thick as p*gsh*t, scientifically speaking, and won't notice these things. Like all the cr*p he got wrong about Tempel 1. Which are still on Thunderdolts as "predictions pending"!!!! No, they are "predictions wrong", you silly old sod.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2015
"Using its two continuum channels, MIRO has mapped the thermal properties of the nucleus subsurface (depths from millimeters to tens of centimeters), and generally finds its properties to be consistent with very porous, dusty material. We see temperature variations due to diurnal and seasonal changes in insolation, and also see evidence for subsurface ice in some regions."

Might want to have a look at the abstracts for the AGU fall meeting, as well.
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2015
Re: "It died right there, right then. End of story."

You guys want to nitpick a man who actually made a detailed prediction -- an unheard of act of bravery in the planetary sciences today -- while giving the enormously serious problem of dark matter a pass. Don't forget that you live in a glass house yourself, and to my eye, the people here throwing the rocks are really just cowardly pundits who lack the balls to diverge from the establishment, to begin with.

And the whole conversation here seems rather defensive, because after all, this current press release appears to me yet another vindication of the EU argument that the "water" observed coming from comets is in fact really just OH:

Oxygen embedded within the rock combined with the solar wind hydrogen to form a molecule which is essentially indistinguishable from H2O. Does not the "surprising" observation of O2 at least a little bit vindicate that claim?

The grumpy old man says, "Bolderdash!"
plasmasrevenge
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2015
What people do not understand about Thornhill is that he's actually the only person taking meticulous count of and educating the public on all of the problems of these textbook theories. A person does not even have to buy into his ideas in order to understand the enormous value to that. The public simply assumes that academics are capable of recounting all of these failures of the textbook theory, but it seems that the current culture is simply incapable of having these discussions because -- unbelievably, actually -- they are simply not taught to the graduate students today. And so, an outsider who is not subject to your culture must service this need for both you and the public.

What is so sad is that you guys think that your discipline can function without somebody serving this role. You're completely wrong on that. There is just so much history which has been swept under the rug by now that it is today obstructing the very innovations which you desire.
CharlesRKiss
3 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
I imagine a lot of comets are the remains of planetary collisions, like the Theia Impact— maybe all of them. idk.
Egleton
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2015
From an Outsiders point of view Science looks like the dogmatic religion it was supposed to replace.
And into this defensive arena all sorts of monsters have been allowed.
The aether has been found, along with a detectable sidereal component.
https://www.dropb...txt?dl=0
and then there is Godzilla, the Quantum Erasure Experiment.
Science could do with a massive dollop of humility and a lot less ego.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2015
You gotta love unexpected results! They typically means faster progress.

@AGW: "I want a good model that explains why so many comets are dumbbell shaped."

Good question, since Rosetta recently settled that:

"Rosetta's 'rubber duck' comet was once two objects ... Scientists say pictures of 67P show its two lobes to have "onion skin" layers that intersect in a way that can only be the result of two different bodies having collided and stuck together." [ http://www.bbc.co...34379287 ]

In other words, internal imaging sees these layers, and they show two once separated comets that gently collided and stuck.

Since it happened for Rosetta it must have happened for a large, perhaps dominant, part of the similar "dumbbells" out there.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2015
Speaking of dumb bells:

@pr: "There is a grumpy-old-man sense to the venting on physorg about the EU".

No, an enthusiastic support of science as opposed to your crankery. You are just sour becuase you pulled down your own pants before the regular spanking yesterday.

"and no sense at all that anybody here has personally invested any real effort into the hard work of methodically mapping out their claims and rebuttals."

Poo. You want to make credentials an argument? You would loose.

Or if you mean work to see that EU, creationism or anti-AGW is anti-science fraud, there is no work involved at all, since it is already done. A creditable skeptic organization, with scientists as members and who consult scientists: "The "Electric Universe" (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas ..." http://rationalwi...Universe

But if you have EM 101 (or Psychology 101), it is as easy to see why and how EU fails.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2015
@Egleton: "From an Outsiders point of view Science looks like the dogmatic religion it was supposed to replace."

Science wasn't and isn't "supposed" to do anything else but work.

That religion had made previous erroneous claims of magic existing in nature is not the business of science but a quirk of history.

But you obviously know nothing of the Outsider Test. "The Outsider test for faith (OTF) is a criterion for rational belief. Religious affiliation is largely determined by that of one's parents and native country. Believers are encouraged to test their beliefs by trying to see them from the perspective of someone outside the faith." [ http://wiki.ironc...der_test ]

Famously christian sects number 36 000+ when counted, while science is the same all over the world.

Religion fails, science pass. Rational skepticism vs crankery: 1 - 0.
rossim22
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
Jonesdave, your continuous slander of Thornhill does not discredit all hypotheses involving the solar wind as a potential energy source. This is argumentum ad hominem.

Also, you're devastatingly mistaken if you believe the presence of grains of ice in the coma falsifies all hypotheses supported by the EU, whether I agree with them or not.

Finally, scientists of DeepImpact predicted the likelihood that the impactor would be lost in the soft relief of the surface, plowing into snow. Quite the opposite happened.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2015
Finally, scientists of DeepImpact predicted the likelihood that the impactor would be lost in the soft relief of the surface, plowing into snow. Quite the opposite happened.


Yet again, utter rubbish. Perhaps you could link to where Pete Schultz said it would "disappear?" Because I have a very detailed paper on the experiments he ran, and the results. You might want to read it, to see how real scientists actually go about their work, rather than self proclaimed experts who have never done anything of note, science-wise, in their lives.
http://pds-smallb...ications

The crater was larger than can be explained by an impact into rock.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015
Jonesdave, your continuous slander of Thornhill does not discredit all hypotheses involving the solar wind as a potential energy source. This is argumentum ad hominem.


No, Thornhill set himself up as an expert. He is quite obviously not. He should have kept his head down if he is continually going to be wrong. If he wants to lambast "mainstream" science, then the idiot can have it back in spades as far as I'm concerned.

And what are these potential energy sources from the solar wind? And remember, given the diamagnetic cavities observed at Halley and 67P, that the solar wind is not reaching the surface at the times of highest activity.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2015
Also, you're devastatingly mistaken if you believe the presence of grains of ice in the coma falsifies all hypotheses supported by the EU, whether I agree with them or not.


Oh, how so? How are you getting ice from solid rock? Ice that wasn't there before the impact, but was immediately after? How are you getting it in the CO2 jets at Hartley 2? Thought they were too hot, due to being electric discharges, to be able to entrain solid ice.

What exactly is the EU now saying about comets? More to the point, where is the evidence?
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015
What is so sad is that you guys think that your discipline can function without somebody serving this role. You're completely wrong on that. There is just so much history which has been swept under the rug by now that it is today obstructing the very innovations which you desire.


Blah,blah, blah. And he has produced zero evidence to back up any of his nonsense. Idiots like him we don't need.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015

And the whole conversation here seems rather defensive, because after all, this current press release appears to me yet another vindication of the EU argument that the "water" observed coming from comets is in fact really just OH:

Oxygen embedded within the rock combined with the solar wind hydrogen to form a molecule which is essentially indistinguishable from H2O. Does not the "surprising" observation of O2 at least a little bit vindicate that claim?


Again, scientifically illiterate nonsense. H2O has been unambiguously detected at dozens of comets for nearly 30 years. See the MIRO results at 67P, for instance. Even thunderdolts took down Thornhill's nonsense about all that "they're mistaking it for OH" nonsense. Just another example of his scientific illiteracy and/ or con tricks.
You need to learn more about IR spectroscopy, mm and sub-mm observations, ro-vibrational lines of H2O and very much more. It is not OH!
kmjoga
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2015
Is there a way to block commenters on here? Seriously. Culling through the personal attacks is unacceptable.

Edit- never mind- the link shows up now.
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
Re: "Jonesdave, your continuous slander of Thornhill does not discredit all hypotheses involving the solar wind as a potential energy source."

Of course, Matt Taylor of the Rosetta mission has already clearly pointed to the solar wind as an energy source for 67P's outgassing. It is apparently only when Wal links the two that it is a huge mistake.
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
Re: "The crater was larger than can be explained by an impact into rock."

That's correct, of course, because Wal was not arguing for JUST an impact into rock. This is remarkably sloppy reasoning, btw.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
"Of course, Matt Taylor of the Rosetta mission has already clearly pointed to the solar wind as an energy source for 67P's outgassing. It is apparently only when Wal links the two that it is a huge mistake."

Where is a link to that, so that it can be read in context? The primary reason for outgassing at comets is known, and has been shown to be, from sublimation of ice. Ice that shouldn't be there according to Thornhill's nonsense. Remember? It's a giant rock excavated from a rocky planet by some sort of electric woo.
While you're at it, how about some reading material?
http://adsabs.har...09L..95L
Paper on the first definite detection of H2O at a comet, from 1986. And no, it wasn't OH!

jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015
Re: "The crater was larger than can be explained by an impact into rock."

That's correct, of course, because Wal was not arguing for JUST an impact into rock. This is remarkably sloppy reasoning, btw.


Oh, he predicted that the subsurface was ice, did he? Hence all the excavated ice grains that were seen from their IR absorbance spectra? Seem to remember him studiously ignoring that particular inconvenient fact.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2015
Of course, Matt Taylor of the Rosetta mission has already clearly pointed to the solar wind as an energy source for 67P's outgassing. It is apparently only when Wal links the two that it is a huge mistake."

Where is a link to that, so that it can be read in context?


It doesn't link to Matt's statement but:

http://blogs.esa....ar-wind/

I'm curious, electricity is a current or flow of charged particles, as is the solar wind. A better question is, how can it NOT be an energy source?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015
Of course, Matt Taylor of the Rosetta mission has already clearly pointed to the solar wind as an energy source for 67P's outgassing. It is apparently only when Wal links the two that it is a huge mistake."

Where is a link to that, so that it can be read in context?


It doesn't link to Matt's statement but:

http://blogs.esa....ar-wind/

I'm curious, electricity is a current or flow of charged particles, as is the solar wind. A better question is, how can it NOT be an energy source?


On the surface of the comet, then it is insignificant to non-existent. It is simply too diffuse to create H2O, CO2, CO etc, as can easily be shown by knowing the outgassing rate of a comet, the amount of molecules in 1 litre of H2O, for instance, and knowing the solar wind density at a given heliocentric distance. The SW is many, many orders of magnitude too diffuse to account for what we see.
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
"Taylor expects that the interaction of the comet with charged particles from an increasing solar wind will cause more cometary outgassing and a much dustier environment which he says may severely impinge on the lander's solar arrays."

http://www.forbes...-lander/

Please spin this as something other than energy from the solar wind. I want to see this.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015
...............http://blogs.esa....ar-wind/

None of that has produced anything particularly unexpected and that we didn't know already from previous comet missions and modelling. Certainly nothing that needs EU to explain it! And yes, I have read all those papers. And many more besides.
One other finding, at Halley and 67P, and consistent with modelling, is that the SW doesn't even reach the surface at times of highest activity. Diamagnetic cavity precludes it. So why the activity, but zero SW? Sublimation.
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
Re: "The SW is many, many orders of magnitude too diffuse to account for what we see."

My understanding of what you're doing here is adopting the assumptions of the conventional paradigm to create calculations which you then claim discredit the electrical paradigm.

Such an approach seems to treat plasma as simply homogeneous, like gas. However, THEMIS has observed that magnetic flux tubes as wide as the Earth itself are quite common.

Not only do you apparently reject laboratory-observed filamentation of plasmas (which can of course conduct currents), but you also seem to obviously reject drawing any reasonable implications from THEMIS.

You may call the solar wind a plasma, but you appear to reject lending the plasma actual properties of laboratory plasmas. Nevermind that plasma tails are also observed so long and thin that some of the planets can even occasionally touch one another in this manner.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015
"Taylor expects that the interaction of the comet with charged particles from an increasing solar wind will cause more cometary outgassing and a much dustier environment which he says may severely impinge on the lander's solar arrays."

http://www.forbes...-lander/

Please spin this as something other than energy from the solar wind. I want to see this.


Where does Taylor say that? I can see that the author of the piece says that, but that is most likely his own misunderstanding of what was said. Unlike other quotes from Taylor, it isn't contained within quotation marks.
Find an original quote from Taylor actually saying that, rather than second hand reporting, and I'll contact him to see what he really said.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015
Re: "The SW is many, many orders of magnitude too diffuse to account for what we see."

My understanding of what you're doing here is adopting the assumptions of the conventional paradigm to create calculations which you then claim discredit the electrical paradigm.

Such an approach seems to treat plasma as simply homogeneous, like gas. However, THEMIS has observed that magnetic flux tubes as wide as the Earth itself are quite common.

Not only do you apparently reject laboratory-observed filamentation of plasmas (which can of course conduct currents), but you also seem to obviously reject drawing any reasonable implications from THEMIS.
.


All of which would be seen and detected by the instruments of the RPC. They haven't been. It is perfectly capable of sensing the environment in which it finds itself, and discerning the SW density. Densities of the sort required by EU would have killed the spaceraft (both of them) long ago.
plasmasrevenge
3 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2015
I'll contact Bruce Dorminey for you. I talk to him regularly.
plasmasrevenge
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015
Re: "All of which would be seen and detected by the instruments of the RPC"

Yet, you've already demonstrated the pattern that if anything WAS seen that it would be interpreted through the lens of gas behaviors. And further, the ESA's Rosetta team has also shown a tendency to hold onto data which it cannot immediately explain. In fact, this is a pretty common practice throughout the discipline, AS YOU SURELY ALREADY KNOW.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
Re: "All of which would be seen and detected by the instruments of the RPC"

Yet, you've already demonstrated the pattern that if anything WAS seen that it would be interpreted through the lens of gas behaviors. And further, the ESA's Rosetta team has also shown a tendency to hold onto data which it cannot immediately explain. In fact, this is a pretty common practice throughout the discipline, AS YOU SURELY ALREADY KNOW.


Lol. RPC = Rosetta Plasma Consortium. They do plasma, not interpretations. The data are what they are.
I guess cover up and conspiracy is all you've got left, given the continuing lack of evidence at this or any other comet for Thornhill's nonsense.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2015
The SW is many, many orders of magnitude too diffuse to account for what we see.


The link I provided actually explains it as two-fold process and describes the comets interaction with the charged particles of the solar wind as well as solar radiation. The paper describes observations between 2 - 4 AU. There are quite a few observations of comets brightening and then dimming despite a continued approach towards the sun, or a "sudden increase in brightness". If it was strictly due to solar radiance the brightness increase would be gradual and reflect only that interaction.

http://www.skyand...1920154/

http://www.univer...-see-it/

plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
No, it's not a conspiracy. Like I said, it's considered an acceptable practice in the industry, and it became known to the public with the article titled ...

NASA Probe Zapped by Saturn Moon's Static
By Miriam Kramer, Staff Writer | October 17, 2014 11:03am ET
http://www.space....ion.html

Note that date there and the title, which is stated as if this just happened yesterday.

Then, the reader is corrected by the first sentence ...

"A spacecraft exploring the Saturn system was zapped by static electricity sent out by one of the ringed wonder's many moons in 2005, a new study suggests."

It apparently took 9 YEARS to explain the observation away.

Where's the conspiracy? I just see an institutional bias against astrophysical conducting plasmas.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
The SW is many, many orders of magnitude too diffuse to account for what we see.


The link I provided actually explains it as two-fold process and describes the comets interaction with the charged particles of the solar wind as well as solar radiation. The paper describes observations between 2 - 4 AU. There are quite a few observations of comets brightening and then dimming despite a continued approach towards the sun, or a "sudden increase in brightness". If it was strictly due to solar radiance the brightness increase would be gradual and reflect only that interaction.

http://www.skyand...1920154/


And this has what to do with the SW? Does ACE data confirm a massive increase in flux at those times? Or, more likely, that there was a cometary jet, possibly of CO2 or CO that caused the brightening. i.e. stuff we actually have evidence for in the past/ present at other comets.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015
It apparently took 9 YEARS to explain the observation away.

Where's the conspiracy? I just see an institutional bias against astrophysical conducting plasmas.


So instead of getting all paranoid about the horrid "mainstream" actually covering things up, why don't you contact the corresponding author of that paper and ask why the results have only recently been published?
Despite what you may think/ have been told, there is no bias against anything. In my experience, most scientists in this field have never heard of Thornhill, or EU. They just report what they find, and try to make scientifically sensible conclusions from the data.
Instead of whinging on here, contact the authors every time you have a conflicting belief, and see what they say. The vast majority are happy to discuss their work, in my experience.
plasmasrevenge
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015
Here's a funny quote from http://sungrazer....ngrazers ...

"A popular misconception is that sungrazing comets cause solar flares and CMEs (coronal mass ejections). While it is true that we have observed bright comets approach the Sun immediately before CME's/flares, there is absolutely no connection between the two events. The sungrazer comets -- in fact all comets -- are completely insignificant in size compared the Sun".

The author seems to not even understand that there IS an electric comet idea. It seems that the intense efforts to prevent the public from knowing OF the idea of an electric comet idea plays at least some part in the idea's "rejection."
plasmasrevenge
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015
Re: "why don't you contact the corresponding author of that paper and ask why the results have only recently been published?"

It's been done before in other instances ...

"It's complete cobblers," said Dr. David Hughes, comet expert and professor of astrophysics at Britain's University of Sheffield. "Absolute balderdash."
"Electricity on the surface of a comet? Forget about it. It's not a contender."

I and others have written MANY, MANY letters.

Re: "Despite what you may think/ have been told, there is no bias against anything."

Alfven would of course disagree with you on this, and your tendency towards gas calculations to try to disprove the laboratory-observed behavior of plasmas in the context of the solar system is clearly a biased approach.

Re: "most scientists in this field have never heard of Thornhill, or EU"

Yes, I know, and as an example, EU critic Tim Thompson tells galactic researchers to simply avoid reading anything in IEEE.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015
"It's complete cobblers," said Dr. David Hughes, comet expert and professor of astrophysics at Britain's University of Sheffield. "Absolute balderdash."
"Electricity on the surface of a comet? Forget about it. It's not a contender.".


Sounds reasonable to me. Why not explain how the electricity gets there, what it does, what is the evidence for it, and why we don't see it?
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
Re: "So instead of getting all paranoid about the horrid "mainstream" actually covering things up"

There is no coverup. You're mischaracterizing the controversy. The researchers simply claimed it was both a surprise AND predicted, AT THE SAME TIME ...

'It was rather like Cassini receiving a 200-volt electric shock from Hyperion, even though they were over 2,000 kilometers [1,200 miles] apart at the time,' said [investigator Tom Nordheim]."

However, the concluding statement of the abstract states of the detected so-called particle beam ...

"We show that this constitutes a remote detection of a strongly negative(~-200 V) surface potential on Hyperion, consistent with the predicted surface potential in regions near the solar terminator."

Ah, it's just a 1,200-mile electrostatic shock!

Apparently, that's the best that they could come up with over the course of 9 YEARS.
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
Re: "Why not explain how the electricity gets there"

This has already been done. Space simply exhibits varying amounts of charge density -- hardly some controversial claim on the order of dark matter. The heliosphere is a plasma double layer which is protecting its charge, no different than we see in the laboratory. Comets move through these regions of varying charge; sometimes filaments of charge flow. The Sun exhibits a very small E-field. All of these things have already been explained ad nauseum.

Re: "what it does, what is the evidence for it, and why we don't see it?"

"We" do see it. YOU don't. It's the same reason why the Philae WAS DESIGNED TO HOOK INTO ICE RATHER THAN ROCK: The entire mission is viewed through the lens of the textbook worldview. Taken as a whole, there have been numerous opportunities to infer electric comets. The opportunity is simply rejected each time it occurs, much like being on a football or baseball team and you're rooting for the win.
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
BTW, Bruce Dorminey states for the record ...

"I stand by my story."

And it's not at all clear how such confusion would arise, to begin with. In fact, it's a remarkable coincidence that the solar wind's charged particles would be mentioned at all in regards to 67P's outgassing.

Perhaps you should consider asking Matt Taylor what he meant by this ... ?
bschott
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015
And this has what to do with the SW?


Because events like this

Or, more likely, that there was a cometary jet, possibly of CO2 or CO that caused the brightening


Aren't spontaneous and require a trigger. At those distances it may be an entirely different population of charged particles as in a planetary plasma structure, but it certainly isn't solar radiance, our eyes would confirm it if that happened.
kelly_duke
not rated yet Oct 29, 2015
Alternative 1:

What we all considered a clear bio-signature is no longer a bio-signature at all. O2 and CH4 can & do persist in a "stable" atmospheric disequilibria indefinitely through some bizarre, unknown primordial chemical processes! We must devise a previously unimagined process for how primordial O2 ice manages to get evenly distributed & persist undisturbed for 5 billion years. And we must show how this O2 ice perfectly replenishes 67P's stable atmospheric disequilibria as it nears the sun.

Alternative 2:

We could just consider the possibility that 67P does indeed have all the previously agreed upon biosignatures of life & when microbial life infects a comet, it terraforms the comet to achieve a stable atmospheric disequilibria, just as it has on Earth.

Only consensus bias against microbial life existing on comets makes the first alternative more "scientifically conservative" than the second. Both alternatives completely annihilate the current consensus paradigm.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
Re: "So instead of getting all paranoid about the horrid "mainstream" actually covering things up"

There is no coverup. You're mischaracterizing the controversy. The researchers simply claimed it was both a surprise AND predicted, AT THE SAME TIME ...

'It was rather like Cassini receiving a 200-volt electric shock from Hyperion, even though they were over 2,000 kilometers [1,200 miles] apart at the time,' said [investigator Tom Nordheim]."

However, the concluding statement of the abstract states of the detected so-called particle beam ...

"We show that this constitutes a remote detection of a strongly negative(~-200 V) surface potential on Hyperion, consistent with the predicted surface potential in regions near the solar terminator."

Ah, it's just a 1,200-mile electrostatic shock!

Apparently, that's the best that they could come up with over the course of 9 YEARS.


And apparently you are grasping at straws. Who is the EU genius on plasma, by the way?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
BTW, Bruce Dorminey states for the record ...

"I stand by my story."

And it's not at all clear how such confusion would arise, to begin with. In fact, it's a remarkable coincidence that the solar wind's charged particles would be mentioned at all in regards to 67P's outgassing.

Perhaps you should consider asking Matt Taylor what he meant by this ... ?


So why don't you do that? Or ask the author what he misunderstood about it?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
And this has what to do with the SW?


Because events like this

Or, more likely, that there was a cometary jet, possibly of CO2 or CO that caused the brightening


Aren't spontaneous and require a trigger. At those distances it may be an entirely different population of charged particles as in a planetary plasma structure, but it certainly isn't solar radiance, our eyes would confirm it if that happened.


Are you being deliberately stupid? Look up the sublimation temperatures of various ices. Is H2O the same as CO2? Or CO? Have a think about it and come back to me.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
""We" do see it. YOU don't. It's the same reason why the Philae WAS DESIGNED TO HOOK INTO ICE RATHER THAN ROCK: The entire mission is viewed through the lens of the textbook worldview. Taken as a whole, there have been numerous opportunities to infer electric comets. The opportunity is simply rejected each time it occurs, much like being on a football or baseball team and you're rooting for the win.


No you don't. EVIDENCE????? How many members of the RPC team would you like to tell you that you are talking complete garbage? You haven't got the faintest clue about what you are talking about. Amateurs. Get some EVIDENCE.
Write it up, or shut up. It's rubbish.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
By the way, you still haven't explained how we get ice grains from solid rock. How does that work?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2015
And what about Thornhill's garbage about a pre-impact flash? What is the latest take on that? Never bothered to look at the SWIFT and Chandra data? Got that a bit wrong, eh?
Evidence free rubbish. If you have actually got some evidence, I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear it. However, as we all know, it's just hand waving, and complete b*llocks.
Which part of ice grains coming out of Tempel 1 and Hartley 2 would you like to tackle first?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
Might want to think about how one is getting O2 as well. Some rubbish about it happening in the coma? Strange that these highly qualified scientists have just ignored that, isn't it? How about any of the COMs found on Lovejoy and various other comets? How is the EU making them? Love to hear fairy tales, so let's go.
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
Re: "And what about Thornhill's garbage about a pre-impact flash? What is the latest take on that?"

"What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks lose." -- NASA investigator, Peter Schultz, July 4, 2005

... to which the TB Group added ...

"The 'explanation' initially offered is mathematically inconceivable. They proposed that the impactor moved through a deep layer of soft material before hitting hard material. But, the delay would require the impactor to have penetrated something like a mile beneath the surface before causing the 'serious' impact event. From such an answer you would think someone dreamt up a mile of fluff for a surface, never actually looking at the sharply-defined features of the nucleus. All of the features suggest a hard surface, and observations to this effect have already come in from the SWIFT satellite."

23,000 mph = 6.4 miles per second
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
The original 2001 prediction made, from the Wayback Machine:

"The electrical model suggests the likelihood of an electrical discharge between the comet nucleus and the copper projectile, particularly if the comet is actively flaring at the time. The projectile will approach too quickly for a slow electrical discharge to occur. So the energetic effects of the encounter should exceed that of a simple physical impact, in the same way that was seen with comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 at Jupiter."

The basic point here is that Thornhill predicted two separate flashes, whereas nobody in the mainstream made any such prediction. When two flashes were indeed observed, all sorts of complaints were filed that Thornhill did not quantify the outbursts (yet, anybody following along with his idea would understand this was impossible).

Video of the encounter plainly showed what appeared to be high-albedo electrical white patches. Arguments were made that these were actually just reflections.
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2015
When subsequent images of impact site were produced by Stardust/NeXT, Schultz remarked:

"There was surprise in the sense that you could have expected a crater that was very well defined."

It's worth mentioning that comet Tempel 1 measured approximately 4.7 x 3.0 miles across, which helps to better understand the 6.4 miles per second figure.

Video of the projectile's final moments ...

https://plus.goog...JpBR3hKR
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2015
Linking to Chris Reeve reeks of desperation.
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
I track controversies, and the reason there is even an opportunity to do this is because academia currently refuses to do it.

There is this belief in academic circles today that there is no point to being methodical about running claims against critics. This leads otherwise intelligent thinkers to dismiss ideas for which evidence subsequently accumulates. Herschel's recent observation of ubiquitous filaments and accretion flows along the length of these filaments is the perfect case in point. This very closely matches expectations for Marklund convection. But, the decision to dismiss plasma-based cosmologies was premature, because it wasn't really until Herschel that it became undeniable that these filaments were playing such a leading role in stellar birthing.

The observations do not come in the order which theorists prefer, and this creates blind spots amongst academics.

What I intend to do is to build a system for mapping out ALL scientific controversies.
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
It is ironic that people who are so meticulous about their mathematics can nevertheless let themselves become so sloppy with the mapping out of claims associated with scientific controversies. There is enormous potential with the study of controversies to create a completely different system for educating laypeople to become critical scientific thinkers.

In fact, the increasingly authoritarian tone of climate scientists and the increasing attempts to create legislation based upon the ad hoc modeling technique demands a significant change in the public's role in science. We can no longer afford to simply take experts at their word, because scientists have decided to expand their own role away from simply generating data and theories to actually influencing legislation.

Fact is that climate change is just one of many controversies that the public has yet to tune into. The mapping of controversies will in due time be recognized as a check upon scientific expertise.
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2015
@plasmarevenge
Basically you are saying that you want more pseudoscience and that there is great potential to turn untrained people into "scientific thinkers" by creating "controversies" where there aren't any. You seem to have a deliberate program and ideology to subvert science by creating as much confusion as possible.
Why? Are you a religious nut? Is it a job and are you paid by business that is suffering from science? Or are you just a narcissist who wants to be a false profet and so avoid all those difficult textbooks and papers, comfortably discarded as "mainstream"?

It is a great shame that phys.org gives you a platform for your activities.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
The basic point here is that Thornhill predicted two separate flashes, whereas nobody in the mainstream made any such prediction.


And, as I've pointed out before, that is just BS. Pete Schultz offered up just that scenario BEFORE Thornhill. Wouldn't surprise me if that's where the trickster first saw it.
http://pds-smallb...ultz.pdf
Thornhill also predicted "copious x-rays" to accompany this imagined electrical discharge. It is still shown at Thunderdolts. Despite the fact that we've known for years that it didn't happen.
http://ftp.astro....2007.pdf

Con artist, or just scientifically ignorant?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
... to which the TB Group added ...

"............But, the delay would require the impactor to have penetrated something like a mile beneath the surface.......... All of the features suggest a hard surface, and observations to this effect have already come in from the SWIFT satellite."

23,000 mph = 6.4 miles per second


And were wrong. As usual. No idea what nonsense was used to calculate a one mile depth. No doubt, knowing EU, they've got it completely wrong.
And SWIFT gave no help to EU.
http://www.resear...ion/link
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
And then, of course, there is the pesky ice grains that were ejected by this impact into "rock". Still unexplained.

By the DI spacecraft:
http://www.planet...3546.pdf

And by the XMM-Newton space observatory:
http://www.resear...0000.pdf
bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2015
Are you being deliberately stupid?


No, just trying REALLY hard to avoid making you look that way, but you seem bound and determined.

Look up the sublimation temperatures of various ices. Is H2O the same as CO2? Or CO?


So you are saying the brightening is a result of an instant increase in temperature at multiple AU distances, causing an instant increase in sublimation that is orders of magnitude higher....with no observed increase in solar radiance.

Have a think about it and come back to me.


I think you need a nap.

bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2015
Basically you are saying that you want more pseudoscience and that there is great potential to turn untrained people into "scientific thinkers" by creating "controversies" where there aren't any.


I'm debating Jonesdave about comet brightening at 4 AU. His mainstream "non pseudoscience" stance is that it is increased sublimation when the required mechanism for increased sublimation isn't present. This debate sprung from plasmas revenge citing charged particle interaction as a mechanism to power reactions in comets.

EU crackpottery aside, this particular phenomenon doesn't have many other potential explanations and the one being cited by jonesdave is the cookie cutter response that isn't even backed by the physics required for it to be correct in this circumstance. It was then suggested that I have a think about it when it is pretty clear who isn't thinking.

So yeah...anything that makes people think is better than programmed drones.
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
Re: "And, as I've pointed out before, that is just BS. Pete Schultz offered up just that scenario BEFORE Thornhill. Wouldn't surprise me if that's where the trickster first saw it."

Would you care to quote your 33-page document? I am seeing two graphs of luminosity which make no mention at all of two separate peaks. Wal's prediction is not actually a surprise for anybody who is familiar with electric charge (everybody), but you've failed to provide any details here which support your claim. You just point to a 33-page document, and say, "See?!"
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
Re: "Basically you are saying that you want more pseudoscience"

What I'm saying is that we should adopt a rigorous approach to disagreement. There should be a structure which is more refined than people calling each other 'pseudoscientists' and 'crackpots', and this structure should actually be fundamentally designed to support the emergence of novel scientific hypotheses (unlike the situation today).

Re: "and that there is great potential to turn untrained people into "scientific thinkers" by creating "controversies" where there aren't any."

Your insistence that you know that there aren't any controversies stands in stark contrast to your failure to adopt a rigorous approach to map them out. You're advocating for the existing lazy approach to controversies which simplistically asserts that experts are immune to politics and groupthink -- and the stakes are too high to base billions of dollars of funding -- as well as our future quality of life -- on this lazy approach.
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
Re: "You seem to have a deliberate program and ideology to subvert science by creating as much confusion as possible."

Adding structure to disagreement does not "create confusion." The intention is to fix the very problem that the academics have created: The failure to teach the public how to actually think LIKE A SCIENTIST. What is happening today is an insistence that the public THINK WHAT SCIENTISTS THINK -- which, up to the point where scientists were trying to enact legislation was arguably a non-issue.

Re: "Why?"

You might try reading Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-battering System That Shapes Their Lives, by Jeff Schmidt, which inspired the largest freedom-of-expression case in North American physics. He explains the reasons why the public needs to routinely question expertise.

The Cliff's Notes are here ...

https://plus.goog...rj2f3zKs
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2015
Chris Reeves G+ page again?

Do you know how to do an internet search or are you just lazy?
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
If you spent as much effort tracking claims by critics and whistleblowers as you spend tracking -- and more crucially, ridiculing -- the people forwarding these claims, you might understand why it makes more sense to point to a handful of selected excerpts rather than a full paper or text:

Simply put, people are busy, and when their need to know QUICKLY is not serviced, they will predictably adopt the believable narratives which truthfully dominate most of the discourse about these more complex scientific controversies today.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2015
So you are saying the brightening is a result of an instant increase in temperature at multiple AU distances, causing an instant increase in sublimation that is orders of magnitude higher....with no observed increase in solar radiance.


Makes a lot more sense than the silly solar wind explanation! How deep do you think SW ions (or electrons, for all I care) penetrate into the cometary dust? I think you'll find that it is a few microns. So what is that going to achieve? Or are we invoking this never before seen electric woo, with it's equally well hidden anodes and cathodes (strange how Rosetta hasn't flown through them), and areas of increasing/ decreasing charge depending on heliocentric distance (something else never observed in 5 decades of spaceflight)?
More woo to explain woo.
my2cts
1 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2015
You can't teach the public to think like a scientist.
It takes a life of study.
If you spent as much effort studying real science as you spend studying crackpot sites ?
bschott
3 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2015
Two things: Not all charged particles in the solar system originate from the sun.

Solar radiance does.

Makes a lot more sense than the silly solar wind explanation!


No it doesn't. It would if, as I mentioned, we observed an increase in solar radiation that we could tie to the comet flare up.

How deep do you think SW ions (or electrons, for all I care) penetrate into the cometary dust? I think you'll find that it is a few microns. So what is that going to achieve?


Apparently deep enough into the coma to cause brightening. Even the outer gases will react, how do you think auroras happen?

plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
Re: "You can't teach the public to think like a scientist. It takes a life of study."

You seem unaware of the field of physics education research (PER). Rather than just making stuff up as you go along, you could consult the existing body of research on this topic.

PER has a lengthy history of successful research which to this day is largely ignored by the universities -- from Joseph Novak's invention of concept maps that were funded, in part, by the CIA and NSA, to the creation of the force concept inventory test (FCI) based upon observations by David Hestenes that the way in which science is taught today is the very cause for the problems we currently see. This is of course also where the concept of flipping the classroom comes from -- a technique basically rooted on the notion of the FCI. There are also very promising techniques in PER known as Modeling Instruction and the Vee diagram -- which both appear to directly address observable problems in science comprehension.
plasmasrevenge
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2015
The most significant impediment to teaching critical thinking in the sciences today is honestly people like yourself who refuse to accommodate differing worldviews in the sciences. Students never actually get a chance to think like a scientist through the process of rote memorization of problem set recipes, where the answers are already known before the question is even asked. It should be obvious that there is no "critical" aspect to following predetermined recipes.

It is only through the deep engagement of ongoing scientific controversies that critical thinking in the sciences can be taught. And that's a big problem for the universities today which increasingly refuse to even acknowledge the existence of these controversies.

Further, a person is incapable of backing out of an idea without a strong CONCEPTUAL & HISTORICAL understanding of all of the idea's justifications. Thus, the current system of science education does not at all support an ability to think critically.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
@plasmasrevenge

You've used a lot of words to basically say "EU deserves respect even if it fails on the evidence
and logic." By your criteria an education would include astrology, numerology, the expanding earth, unicorns, and fairy dust. I missed ancient aliens and creationism. I could add more but you get the point.
plasmasrevenge
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2015
Re: "By your criteria an education would include ..."

Let's not forget that when radio waves were first observed coming from space by RADIO ENGINEERS, the astronomers assumed it was either a hoax or a mistake.

Of course, when rocks were said to sometimes fall from the sky up to the 1800's, scientists thought of the claim much like UFO's are treated today.

Robert Goddard was very publicly humiliated over the course of many years by scientists for proposing that rockets could fly in space, where they claimed that there was nothing for the rocket to push against. This ridicule is documented all the way to at least 1936 -- ONLY 8 YEARS before similar rockets rained down upon London. The net effect of this ridicule was for Goddard to avoid sharing his ideas with society.

It is a fact of life that anybody who wants to innovate in the sciences must learn to not feel the ridicule.
plasmasrevenge
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2015
"The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space] ... presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished."

-- Sir Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer, reviewing P.E. Cleator's "Rockets in Space", NATURE, March 14, 1936

"This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurd lengths to which vicious specialisation will carry scientists."

-- A.W. Bickerton, physicist, NZ, 1926

The other rocket experts, von Karman's group at Caltech, avoided ridicule by calling their devices "jets." Hence, their successful product "Jet-assisted Takeoff," i.e. strapping solid-fuel rockets to military aircraft (not jets). And hence the name "JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory".
plasmasrevenge
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2015
The mistake you guys have made is in thinking that belonging to the tribe will somehow maximize your impact upon science and society. Tribalism does not serve society; it serves the needs of the tribe foremost, and unfortunately -- typically -- at the expense of your own ability to innovate.

Does the world really need more people who agree with the textbooks? The textbooks have led the greatest minds of the world to a universe dominated by invisible entities.

When Gerald Pollack pitches his Institute for Venture Science, he asks his audience to list out the greatest CONCEPTUAL revolutions of the past few decades.

What do you guys think? Can you name any?
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2015
It would if, as I mentioned, we observed an increase in solar radiation that we could tie to the comet flare up.

Apparently deep enough into the coma to cause brightening. Even the outer gases will react, how do you think auroras happen?


1) So have you bothered to look at the ACE data for the dates in question? Were there increases in the flux at that time?

2) How does that affect the brightening at a comet? All you'll get is extra charge exchange. You'll see that in X-ray, not visible. There have been increased fluxes while Rosetta has been at 67P. Nothing much happened. The brightness is due to extra dust in the coma reflecting sunlight. It has to have got there due to an outburst. There are various possible triggers for this, including the transition from amorphous to crystalline ice, among others.
It's difficult to know the volatiles responsible, as, by their nature, these outbursts are unpredictable, so there is little to no chance of catching them in the act.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2015
The mistake you guys have made is in thinking that belonging to the tribe will somehow maximize your impact upon science and society. Tribalism does not serve society; it serves the needs of the tribe foremost, and unfortunately -- typically -- at the expense of your own ability to innovate.


As I think Sagan once said, "it pays to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

That is what has happened with EU. In particular its crazy claims relating to comets.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2015
What I intend to do is to build a system for mapping out ALL scientific controversies
@plasmasr
- if you are going to attempt this, then the only way to actually make the point is to get your "mapping" as well as evidence peer reviewed. this will either establish you as a legitimate scientific critic or as a crackpot, depending on the evidence provided
- if you can't pass the peer review process, this means your evidence is not compelling or accurate (don't bother with the "peer review" conspiracist ideation a-la zeph. etc)
Fact is that climate change is just one of many controversies
the simple fact that you consider there a controversy means you don't comprehend the physics/science
science has a process that will allow even you to dispute it's studies, IF and ONLY IF you have evidence
and said evidence must be as controlled and methodical as everything else in the scientific method
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2015
@plasma cont'd
What I'm saying is that we should adopt a rigorous approach to disagreement. There should be a structure...
there IS such a method
it is called the Scientific Method
https://en.wikipe...c_method

there are levels of evidence: hearsay and eyewitness being the worst. this is akin to making unsubstantiated claims/conjectures

now, as for the thunder site, this is called pseudoscience for a reason: because it fails to adhere to the rigorous controls of the scientific method as well as demonstrate claims with evidence

their claims about "in the lab" etc, are seemingly logical at first glance to a layman until they notice that there is no actual evidence other than "it looks like [insert adjective here]"

then reality hits
http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

then there is predictability
eu has none
their "predictions" have mostly been after the fact

Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2015
@plasma
...people are busy, and when their need to know QUICKLY is not serviced, they will predictably adopt the believable narratives ...
and this is proven false already
what people think (you can see this in Climate Change) is heavily influenced on their peers, religion, and political affiliations: NOT on logic or science, or critical thinking
See:
http://arstechnic...nformed/

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

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

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

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

one common thread re: pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and religion:
the circular argument to justify their personal delusional beliefs and refusal to accept actual evidence
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2015
@plasma last
... deep engagement of ongoing scientific controversies that critical thinking...
the biggest problem i see is evidence and learning to discern what is viable and what is not
you can't teach this by arguing controversy (subjective): only by showing evidence and learning about what it is

another point: you can't build upon evidence that is validated if it is not known

your argument against using textbooks means you think all science should re-done as you go along, but that is not only time consuming, it is not feasible to do 100yrs of experimentation on the 18 years of learning!

this is the reason for language, communication and textbooks: to share the evidence so that you can build upon what already is proven

your argument is to allow pseudoscience equivalent status to science and let the people agree to believe in whatever: that is not science- that is RELIGION

evidence is the reason science works
and why pseudoscience fails
PERIOD
ogg_ogg
3 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2015
The obvious problem "teaching/learning science" is that it requires acceptance of authority. Some flawed/less capable minds find it hard to differentiate appeals to religious authority from appeals to scientific authority.(especially if the textbook does not provide citations to the secondary literature to allow an open mind to explore the facts/measurements used as the basis of the pronunciations in the book). I wonder how many of the cranks are so because of the incompetence of their educational exposure in science? At the introductory level, the only difference between science and religion is that certain elementary experiments can be done, while as the material becomes more complex, there can be no reasonable expectation that the student can verify the claimed facts first hand. I wonder what fraction of the world's population has ever done a 2nd-year-Physics lab experiment (and had the analytical/math skills to understand it)? In fact, much of educational science is pseudo-science.
ogg_ogg
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2015
This is a cool finding. I always have wondered why comets "had to" be formed starting with the protoplanetary disk. I sure wish the article had spoken to the existence (or lack of evidence for) O2 in molecular clouds and why O2 would form at all given the prevalence of H in the Universe.
mreda14
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2015
The Japanese space agency's Hayabusa, which was launched in 2003 and successfully rendezvoused with the asteroid 25143 Itokawa and remained in close proximity for many months to collect samples (landed on the small asteroid which has small unstable gravity) and information, was powered by four xenon ion engines.
Although the ion engines on Hayabusa had some technical difficulties, in-flight reconfiguration allowed one of the four engines to be repaired, and allowed the mission to successfully return to Earth. I do not know if we will ever see Rosetta return to earth again.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2015
Tell us mreda14,

what did we learn about comets with Hayabusa exactly?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2015
This is a cool finding. I always have wondered why comets "had to" be formed starting with the protoplanetary disk. I sure wish the article had spoken to the existence (or lack of evidence for) O2 in molecular clouds and why O2 would form at all given the prevalence of H in the Universe.


There is a bit more detail here: http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/
There was also a recent report of the finding of 21 complex organic molecules on comet Lovejoy. All 21 have also been found in molecular clouds in star forming regions.
All of these findings help to put constraints on the time, location and temperature at which comets were formed and, therefore, the conditions under which our own solar system formed.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2015
Tell us mreda14,

what did we learn about comets with Hayabusa exactly?


That they aren't asteroids?
Bongstar420
not rated yet Nov 01, 2015
Where is the Hydrogen?

One would think that the presence of Hydrogen would indicate in situ production while its absence would indicate the O2 as trapped in crystals from formation.

As for the "signals of life," it seems we should expect lots of abiotic signatures which look "similar" given that there has to be abiotic ways for life to come to be.
DavidW
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2015


evidence is the reason science works
and why pseudoscience fails
PERIOD


Life is most important in life is the most important truth in life.
The evidence? You are alive and try arguing the point without life.
Truth and life are the only reason science works.

Proving things false, as you have done correctly on many occasions in the past does little to further your position, because you are yet to publicly admit and accept the most important truth of them all. We all need to do it and it is a work in progress for us all. Yet, your attempt to improve the situation have the opposite effect, because we know better now, have the evidence, and you still ignore the most important truth of all in life in your writings, as if you are better than others, when we are each most important.
my2cts
5 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2015
The most significant impediment to teaching critical thinking in the sciences today is honestly people like yourself who refuse to accommodate differing worldviews in the sciences.

And this you say while not knowing the first thing about me.
This is just as baseless as everything else you say.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2015
you are yet to publicly admit and accept the most important truth of them all
@david
1- your entire post is called "unsubstantiated conjecture"
2- WTF does that BS post even mean? and who's truth are you saying i should admit to?
yours?
truth is a subjective term that can be manipulated depending upon perspective
reality, however, is only what can be proven (thus, evidence is the key)
as if you are better than others
there is no such thing
in order to be "better" there must be a shared or accepted set of criteria, as "better" is a subjective term

the rest of your post is complete nonsense as it addresses nothing, says less, and is essentially a delusional rant about nonsense

Perhaps you should learn what constitutes evidence before discussion?
start here: http://www.auburn...ion.html

Then learn a little about the scientific method
https://en.wikipe...c_method

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.