Hubble spots possible water plumes erupting on Jupiter's moon Europa

September 26, 2016
This video is a time-lapse sequence of Hubble Space Telescope images of the moon Europa as it moved across the face of Jupiter over the course of 19 minutes. Europa is at the bottom center on Jupiter's disk, with the Great Red Spot to the left and Europa's shadow to its right. The video was created by combining six snapshots taken in ultraviolet light with Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3. Credit: NASA, ESA, W. Sparks and Zolt Levay (STScI)

Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have imaged what may be water vapor plumes erupting off the surface of Jupiter's moon Europa. This finding bolsters other Hubble observations suggesting the icy moon erupts with high-altitude water vapor plumes.

The observation increases the possibility that missions to Europa may be able to sample Europa's ocean without having to drill through miles of ice.

"Europa's ocean is considered to be one of the most promising places that could potentially harbor life in the solar system," said Geoff Yoder, acting associate administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington, D.C. "These plumes, if they do indeed exist, may provide another way to sample Europa's subsurface."

The plumes are estimated to rise about 125 miles (200 kilometers) before, presumably, raining material back down onto Europa's surface. Europa has a huge global ocean containing twice as much water as Earth's oceans, but it is protected by a layer of extremely cold and hard ice of unknown thickness. The plumes provide a tantalizing opportunity to gather samples originating from under the surface without having to land or drill through the ice.

The team, led by William Sparks of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore, Maryland, observed these finger-like projections while viewing Europa's limb as the moon passed in front of Jupiter.

The video will load shortly
This is an artist's concept of the moon Europa, at right, with water-ice plumes erupting from its limb at the 7 o'clock position. In the background is Jupiter's orange, volcanic moon Io. Io's shadow appears in the center of Jupiter's face, left. Credit: NASA, ESA, and G. Bacon (STScI)

The original goal of the team's observing proposal was to determine whether Europa has a thin, extended atmosphere, or exosphere. Using the same observing method that detects atmospheres around planets orbiting other stars, the team also realized if there was water vapor venting from Europa's surface, this observation would be an excellent way to see it.

"The atmosphere of an extrasolar planet blocks some of the starlight that is behind it," Sparks explained. "If there is a thin atmosphere around Europa, it has the potential to block some of the light of Jupiter, and we could see it as a silhouette. And so we were looking for absorption features around the limb of Europa as it transited the smooth face of Jupiter."

In 10 separate occurrences spanning 15 months, the team observed Europa passing in front of Jupiter. They saw what could be plumes erupting on three of these occasions.

This work provides supporting evidence for water plumes on Europa. In 2012, a team led by Lorenz Roth of Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, detected evidence of water vapor erupting from the frigid south polar region of Europa and reaching more than 100 miles (160 kilometers) into space. Although both teams used Hubble's Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) instrument, each used a totally independent method to arrive at the same conclusion.

"When we calculate in a completely different way the amount of material that would be needed to create these absorption features, it's pretty similar to what Roth and his team found," Sparks said. "The estimates for the mass are similar, the estimates for the height of the plumes are similar. The latitude of two of the plume candidates we see corresponds to their earlier work."

This composite image includes data from Hubble’s Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph, which shows suspected plumes of water vapor erupting at the 7 o'clock position off the limb of Jupiter's moon Europa. The image of Europa, superimposed on the Hubble data, is assembled from data from the Galileo and Voyager missions. Credit: NASA, ESA, W. Sparks (STScI), the USGS Astrogeology Science Center, and Z. Levay (STScI)

But as of yet, the two teams have not simultaneously detected the plumes using their independent techniques. Observations thus far have suggested the plumes could be highly variable, meaning that they may sporadically erupt for some time and then die down. For example, observations by Roth's team within a week of one of the detections by Sparks' team failed to detect any plumes.

If confirmed, Europa would be the second moon in the solar system known to have water vapor plumes. In 2005, NASA's Cassini orbiter detected jets of water vapor and dust spewing off the surface of Saturn's moon Enceladus.

Scientists may use the infrared vision of NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, which is scheduled to launch in 2018, to confirm venting or plume activity on Europa. NASA also is formulating a mission to Europa with a payload that could confirm the presence of plumes and study them from close range during multiple flybys.

"Hubble's unique capabilities enabled it to capture these plumes, once again demonstrating Hubble's ability to make observations it was never designed to make," said Paul Hertz, director of the Astrophysics Division at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. "This observation opens up a world of possibilities, and we look forward to future missions—such as the James Webb Space Telescope—to follow-up on this exciting discovery."

The work by Sparks and his colleagues will be published in the Sept. 29 issue of The Astrophysical Journal.

Explore further: Hubble discovers water vapor venting from Jupiter's moon Europa

More information: Astrophysical Journal, hubblesite.org/pubinfo/pdf/2016/33/pdf.pdf

Related Stories

Life on Europa? Scientists ponder the possibilities

February 19, 2015

When Galileo viewed Jupiter through his telescope in 1610, he saw four dim objects near it that he assumed were stars. Repeated observations revealed that these "stars" orbited Jupiter like our own moon circles Earth. Thus ...

Recommended for you

Galaxy NGC 1132 has a disturbed hot halo, study finds

June 27, 2017

(Phys.org)—A new study recently published on arXiv.org reveals that the fossil group galaxy NGC 1132 (also known as UGC 2359) has a disturbed and asymmetrical hot halo. The findings provide new insights into the formation ...

New way to form close double black holes

June 27, 2017

A team of three Dutch astronomers from the University of Amsterdam and Leiden University found a new way to form two black holes that orbit each other for quite a while and then merge. Their publication with computer simulations ...

Arp 299: Galactic Goulash

June 26, 2017

What would happen if you took two galaxies and mixed them together over millions of years? A new image including data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory reveals the cosmic culinary outcome.

60 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Andrew Palfreyman
1 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2016
Juno - ignoring
Upcoming Europa mission - not designed to look for life

A simple scoop to collect a few ice crystals from the plume. A small onboard microheater and microscope. AI software. A datalink. Why is that hard?
rrrander
1 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2016
Why do you let these Chinese spammers rubbish sit on the site for hours, days?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2016
Another world with EDM as the likely process which creates the plumes.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (14) Sep 27, 2016
Another world with EDM as the likely process which creates the plumes.


Bollocks. Please provide a link to something vaguely scientific, which proposes EDM as a possible mechanism for this, or any other process at solar system bodies.
SCVGoodToGo
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2016
Another world with EDM as the likely process which creates the plumes.


Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2016
@ jonesdumb;
Do you mean electric discharge or "electric discharge"? Is it sputtering or "sputtering"? We know that Io is electrically connected to Jupiter, but not "electrically" connected, maybe Europa too... Oh look, Europa is electromagnetically connected to Jupiter just as is Io and Enceladus to Saturn.
https://www.newsc...t-touch/
Strangely they have plumage as well...
SCVGoodToGo
4 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
cum hoc ergo propter hoc
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Sep 27, 2016
@ jonesdumb;
Do you mean electric discharge or "electric discharge"? Is it sputtering or "sputtering"? We know that Io is electrically connected to Jupiter, but not "electrically" connected, maybe Europa too... Oh look, Europa is electromagnetically connected to Jupiter just as is Io and Enceladus to Saturn.
https://www.newsc...t-touch/
Strangely they have plumage as well...


And what has any of that got to do with water plumes? Or the human controlled EDM process?
I'll ask again; show me a link to somebody suggesting EDM could be causing these plumes. Or anything else in the solar system outside of a lab. Not links to crank sites, thank you.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2016
cum hoc ergo propter hoc


Post hoc ergo propter hoc? :)
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2016
Re: "Bollocks. Please provide a link to something vaguely scientific, which proposes EDM as a possible mechanism for this, or any other process at solar system bodies."

Scientific American appears to be the only news organization which is meaningfully reporting on the data. They plainly state at http://www.scient...-europa/ ...

"With the new detections reported by Sparks's team, the 'tidal heating' hypothesis seems weaker than before—the possible plumes they spotted do not seem to occur when Europa's tidal heating should be strongest."

There are in fact many very strong arguments for EDM. The scientific community has simply refused to follow these claims up, but that shouldn't stop people from paying attention ...

Electric Discharge Machining
https://plus.goog...EXQEB4pJ
FredJose
1 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2016
Water, water, everywhere in the universe, but alas, not a shred of life in sight! Sigh......
SCVGoodToGo
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2016
Post hoc ergo propter hoc? :)


Possibly, but in this case I think cum hoc ergo proptor hoc is more appropriate as order of events is not necessarily required. You know, the whole correlation/causation deal.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
Re: "Bollocks. Please provide a link to something vaguely scientific, which proposes EDM as a possible mechanism for this, or any other process at solar system bodies."

Scientific American appears to be the only news organization which is meaningfully reporting on the data. They plainly state at http://www.scient...-europa/


And, yet again, I say show me the paper/s. Who has written them? Where are they? How can you ignore something that doesn't exist as a scientific hypothesis? It's crap.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
Water, water, everywhere in the universe, but alas, not a shred of life in sight! Sigh......


Lol. We haven't even looked!
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2016
Strangely they have plumage as well...

But no EDM ...
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2016
Electric Discharge Machining
https://plus.goog...EXQEB4pJ


And a more accurate description: https://en.wikipe...achining
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2016
Water, water, everywhere in the universe, but alas, not a shred of life in sight! Sigh......


Lol. We haven't even looked!
-And if it were up to godders we never would. Blasphemy and all that.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
Scientific American appears to be the only news organization which is meaningfully reporting on the data
@hannes/reeve
how in the hell do you get that?
for starters, SA is writing an *article* (means opinion) based upon the linked NASA info
...the scientists announced at a NASA press conference Monday
link goes here: http://www.nasa.g...ctivity/

more to the point: it in no way, shape or form supports the eu claims of "EDM as a mechanism"

if ya can't learn to read, how can ya learn to publish the promised studies?
LOL
is literacy a failing of all eu acolytes?

did you even read any further?
Both detections lie at the edge of statistical significance and come from the same instrument upon the same telescope
or
Sparks fully acknowledges that his team's results remain frustratingly hazy. "These observations are at the limit of what Hubble can do,"
or
We do not claim to have proven the existence of plumes
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2016
@hannes/reeve cont'd
There are in fact many very strong arguments for EDM
not if you're ASSuming this article is justification for your plumes
read on:
Such caution is justified—the presence (or absence) of Europa's plumes could profoundly alter the future of interplanetary exploration, redirecting billions of dollars in funding toward new exploratory missions
and
there is no guarantee that Europa's plumes, if confirmed, would even be connected to the subsurface ocean at all. They could instead be linked to molten patches in the crust far above...
so there isn't even validated evidence of plumes!
... just that the potential for them may be present

that is why the future probe will investigate (also mentioned in your article, BTW - 6 or so paragraphs from the end)

so all you've really done is demonstrate confirmation bias, logical fallacies and that you're incapable of basic literacy skills
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2016
@hannes/reeve cont'd
The scientific community has simply refused to follow these claims up,
no, they haven't
there isn't a reason to ASSume it's a viable method of scarring or cratering considering it's lack of source or power

it's not rocket surgery - hell, even you could work out the power requirements

even you can't find a viable source to link with reputable evidence, either... you linked your personal pseudoscience page:
https://plus.goog...EXQEB4pJ
which is a potential PHISHING-SPAM LINK and KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE

if ya can't link reputable published validated papers then you are posting pseudoscience and hopeful wishes on a falling star - not science

this is why you fail to make the argument to scientists and you can only convince the ignorant
because you can't provide actual reputable evidence for your claims
SCVGoodToGo
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2016
Strangely they have plumage as well...


So do birds.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2016
Strangely they have plumage as well...


So do birds.

great
thanks @SCVGoodToGo

now cantdrive is gonna say birds can fly because they're electric birds and plasma is why they're colourful...

ROTFLMFAO
Chris_Reeve
2 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2016
Re: "And, yet again, I say show me the paper/s. Who has written them? Where are they? How can you ignore something that doesn't exist as a scientific hypothesis? It's crap."

Demonstrating once again that people on physorg have a bias against electricity in space, the great irony in this particular case is that THE PAPER WE ARE DISCUSSING implicates the surrounding plasma as a possible cause ...

Page 16:

"Variations in the plasma environment cause large variations in auroral activity, and even if plume activity is fairly constant, or slowly varying, rapid fluctuations in the ambient plasma can result in substantially different detectability of the plume emission"

Read it:

https://arxiv.org...8215.pdf
Chris_Reeve
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2016
Rapid variations in the ambient plasma would logically produce a need for Jupiter and its moon to charge-neutralize. Hence, electric discharge machining of the surface.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2016
As for the article:
The observation increases the possibility that missions to Europa may be able to sample Europa's ocean without having to drill through miles of ice.

I wonder if one could land close to a plume (always assuming their existence is sufficiently verified), wait till it stops spewing, and then slide a bot down the hole? Might this not circumvent the whole "need to drill through miles of ice" deal?

At the very least it would make it a whole lot easier/safer, because drilling in any spot always has the danger of hitting some enclosed rocks and getting stuck...whereas following a known plume virtually guarantees an all water/ice channel.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2016
Electric Discharge Machining
https://plus.goog...EXQEB4pJ

And a more accurate description: https://en.wikipe...achining

Because it's not electric discharge, it's an "electric discharge"...
I ask jonesdumb, can you possibly get any more moronic?
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2016
As for the article:

Ahh yes, pontifications of the pipe dreamers. What to do if the plumes move as some do on Io?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016


Demonstrating once again that people on physorg have a bias against electricity in space, the great irony in this particular case is that THE PAPER WE ARE DISCUSSING implicates the surrounding plasma as a possible cause ...
Page 16:
"Variations in the plasma environment cause large variations in auroral activity, and even if plume activity is fairly constant, or slowly varying, rapid fluctuations in the ambient plasma can result in substantially different detectability of the plume emission"

Read it:


I've read it, you idiot. Difference is, I understood it! This, by your own quote, is about the conditions affecting the VISIBILTY of the putative plumes - NOT THE CAUSE OF THEM!!!! Nobody has any bias against electricity in space - have a look on Google Scholar, for instance. You won't find anybody stupid enough to suggest EDM as a valid process in astrophysical conditions, though. Because it is scientifically illiterate crap, nothing less. If not, then write it up.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016
Electric Discharge Machining
https://plus.goog...EXQEB4pJ

Because it's not electric discharge, it's an "electric discharge"...
I ask jonesdumb, can you possibly get any more moronic?


No moron, as I keep asking, point me to the paper where this is written up in a professional, scientific way. Otherwise it's just garbage. How are you getting what is a human invented process, working 'in the wild'? Who has suggested such bollocks? Where have they suggested this bollocks? Who peer reviewed this bollocks? Is this the same non-existent EDM bollocks that was supposed to be happening at comets? Lol. What are the qualifications of the people who dreamed up this bollocks? What are their previous publications? Why haven't they published this paradigm changing bollocks?

I think we all know the answer to that - because it's bollocks.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
Rapid variations in the ambient plasma would logically produce a need for Jupiter and its moon to charge-neutralize. Hence, electric discharge machining of the surface.


Crap. Show me where anybody has suggested this in the scientific literature. It is a half baked bunch of scientifically illiterate garbage, that only exists in the minds of the gullible denizens of a crank science, book selling website. Who also believe that Earth used to orbit Saturn, FFS!
You have the cheek to accuse people of ignoring your mythology based, electrically comedic ideas, but how can science ignore something that doesn't exist?
Write it up, or shut up.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
As for the article:

Ahh yes, pontifications of the pipe dreamers. What to do if the plumes move as some do on Io?


You mean the volcanic plumes on Io? What have they got to do with your scientifically challenged, electric non-hypothesis?
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
Re: "This, by your own quote, is about the conditions affecting the VISIBILTY of the putative plumes - NOT THE CAUSE OF THEM!!!!

Cause is of course inferred based upon observations like ... plume visibility, and in particular, plume TIMING ... and of course those observations are interpreted through the theorists' worldview.

EDM is usually NOT inferred -- not because the observations do not support it. In fact, there are many cases where EDM can indeed be inferred on local solar system bodies. EDM is not inferred because the current theoretical structure was constructed long before 1958, when plasma was first directly observed to be common in space. That's when we sent the first rockets into space. Up until that point, a lot of theory-making had occurred under the assumption that space was empty.

Instances where EDM can be inferred are listed here:

https://plus.goog...EXQEB4pJ
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2016
"'Space' was invented on Earth before we knew what was out there"

From a 1963 Popular Science interview with James Van Allen (see top of page 76) at ...

https://books.goo...;f=false
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2016
Ahh yes, pontifications of the pipe dreamers. What to do if the plumes move as some do on Io?

Several possibilities:
a) Stay in orbit and land only after you have spotted a plume.
b) Land, wait for one and then relaunch to move over there. Europa's gravity is very low (slightly less than that of the Moon). A robotic explorer would require very little fuel to get from point A to point B. If that is too much then go to Enceladus which also sports geysers and where surface gravity is again half of that.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2016
@CR/HA,
You are linking to your own pseudoscientific nonsense! How is that proof of anything? Like I said, write it up, or shut up. Scared of peer review? Surely somebody has written this down in a professional manner? You know, description of the mechanism, how it comes about, how it would be seen by various instruments. Power involved, currents, voltage, amperage, etc, etc? Temperatures? Plasma density? How it resembles a human invented process that is conducted under oil, from a few mm, in very quick pulses?
Like I said, as it stands you don't even have a hypothesis, so how can it be ignored?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016
@CR/HA,
......and of course those observations are interpreted through the theorists' worldview.


You mean the evidence based interpretations of highly qualified and experienced scientists? Using some of the finest instruments ever built? Sticking, at all times, to the known laws of physics?

As opposed to the worldview of a bunch of rank amateurs, who think Earth used to orbit Saturn, that Velikovsky is a genius, despite violating many of those same laws of physics, and having not a scrap of evidence, nor even viable hypotheses for their nonsense?

Given the option, I'll stick with the former!
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016
@jonesdave, just because the scientific community has so far refused to publish papers on these observations does not mean that people will stop asking these questions.

The fact is that this is really just one of numerous ongoing scientific controversies which academics have reacted to in a manner devoid of competing worldviews. Some call it a "positivist" or "scientistic" approach (these are not meant as compliments in this context).

Notice that the gplus graphic I linked to is in a collection of 120+ other graphics. Each one of these "controversy cards" are either critiques of science or a review of an ongoing scientific controversy.

Academia believes that it can make progress without asking these questions. Many of us simply do not agree.

And let's be clear: We're not going anywhere. We will continue to speak up on all of these controversies until people listen.
Chris_Reeve
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2016
And by the way ...

In regards to: "which is a potential PHISHING-SPAM LINK"

Google+ is a social network where people post content. It is owned and operated by Google. It is not possible to harvest personal information on the site, as it does not allow people to upload code.

Why do you think Stumpy feels it necessary to lie about this?
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2016
"Why do you think Stumpy feels it necessary to lie about this?"
------------------------------

It ain't the only thing. Once he gets mad at you, he goes crazy. Lies, smears, innuendo, and defamation are his weapons, and since he hides who he really is, he thinks he is untouchable.

This forum is cursed with several of his type.

Meanwhile, I suggest we do flybys through the plumes before we try to land and drill, and consider Enceladus instead. Enceladus has shown to have indications of geothermal activity. That is how deep sea vents harbored non-photosynthetic life in our oceans.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016
@CR/HA,
just because the scientific community has so far refused to publish papers on these observations does not mean that people will stop asking these questions.


So if they have been written up, but not published, then you must have copies of them, yes? With all the detail I asked about previously? So link us to it.

And let's be clear: We're not going anywhere. We will continue to speak up on all of these controversies until people listen.


It may come as a shock to you, but writing scientifically illiterate crap on a crank science website is not going to get you noticed! Scientists are far too busy to look at nonsense like that. You can get a gazillion viewers for the EU nonsense on Youtube, and it won't make a whit of difference. It isn't a popularity contest. Astrology and homeopathy have never gone away, and have far more adherents than EU. No scientist takes them seriously.
How can you not go away, when science doesn't even know you're there?

cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
How are you getting what is a human invented process, working 'in the wild'?

Electric Discharge is a human invented process? Here I thought Ben Franklin flew his kite into a thunderstorm. Now, according to jonesdumb, Franklin invented lightning, implanted it into a cloud, then flew his kite into the storm to induce the lightning, apparently (according to jonesdumb).

No jonesdumb, humans didn't invent EDM. Yes, we have invented machines to harness these physics, but electric discharge is a naturally occurring phenomena such as lightning. The words machine (object/noun) and machining (action/verb) have different meanings. "Electric discharge machining" is the action of using electric sparks (for example) to erode or apply material to a surface (just as lightning can do).
http://news.natio...geology/
The machine just makes the use of the physics manageable. Stop being so jonesdumb.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2016
@cantthink,
Give it up. You have no hypothesis. I keep asking for a link to it - the total lack of anything remotely scientific in reply suggests that this has never been written up, and never been subjected to scientific review.
It's just the usual refrain from the scientifically challenged believers in the mythology based woo of Wallace & Gromit - "we refuse to believe mainstream science, so let's just say 'it's electrical'; that'll do."
Like I said to CR/HA; nobody who counts is taking the slightest bit of notice. Not due to bias, but due to the total lack of anything scientifically literate to take any notice of.
And yes, humans did invent EDM. The 'M' refers to machining, which implies a machine. It is carried out under oil, on a conducting surface. It does not happen naturally. Yes, I know electric discharges exist - I've seen lightning!! - but it has eff all to do with EDM.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2016
ED is on the way out. Everybody is switching to LED.
Stars/galaxy's/planets/comets are light/photon emitting/generating diodes.
Chips to be precise.
Sarcasm intended.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2016
Right, it's electric discharge, not "electric discharge"...

Who puts your pants on for you?
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2016
https://arxiv.org...8215.pdf
@reeve/alfvenTROLL
not one place in this study is it mentioned that there is a method or ability for EDM nor that there is an electrical or EM power source able to cause EMD nor goological malformation
hence the "bias" is your own desire to see what isn't there simply because there is a mention of plasma somewhere in a plume study - as demonstrated by your following post
Instances where EDM can be inferred are listed here:

https://plus.goog...EXQEB4pJ
PSEUDOSCIENCE PHISHING SPAM SITE
Google+ is a social network
no. google scholar is a search engine that only searches journals and publications for seekign of reputable science/evidence

the fact that you can't differentiate between google plus and google scholar is telling and demonstrates your own bias and delusional Dunning-Kruger mentality

learn to internet - it helps when you don't make nooB stupid mistakes
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR KAM
Lies, smears, innuendo, and defamation are his weapons, and since he hides who he really is, he thinks he is untouchable
1- you can't prove that i've done any of the mentioned - and that is called libel, and gives cause to litigate

2- i'm not anonymous (ask Otto) and you have my name, address and map to my house making you a bigger liar than anyone else - also considered libel

3- feel free to actually make good on your threat to sue me at any time. i can't wait to get into court

4- meanwhile: reported, per your own request

PS- facts are my weapons. i can prove everything i said about you.

you can't do the same, hence the lies and threats about litigation
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2016
Never wrestle with a pig.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2016
Right, it's electric discharge, not "electric discharge"...

Who puts your pants on for you?


You seriously are stupid, aren't you? Couldn't figure out what Alfven had said - had to be corrected on that. Can't figure out what the idiot Thornhill is on about, regarding his electric comet bollocks? It can't be good, can it, believing in bollocks like that? Take a rest from it, eh? Nobody is taking it remotely seriously. Have a lie down. You are talking sh*te. As usual.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2016
Should I go through all the idiotic mistakes made by T & T in their 'electric comet' poster; AGAIN? How many effing times until you idiots realise that you are being conned? Like to see it again? Because I do have it saved in a .txt file. Anybody? Chris Reeve/ Hannes Alfven (wanker; why use the name of somebody that actually understood comets were ice?).
You really are useless. Could someone explain to me how this EU bollocks has ever actually explained anything? Not going to happen, I know.
Please, just ONE paper. And then we can put it out in the 'wild', and get some 'peer review' on it. Not going to happen. Wank*rs.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2016
Here is a paper which discusses plasma arc discharge.

http://plasmauniv...sler.pdf
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2016
Here is a paper which discusses plasma arc discharge.

http://plasmauniv...sler.pdf
@cantthink
1- PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE

2- if you can't link to a reputable source then this proves, more than anything else, that you can't find actual evidence to support your delusional cult beliefs
source material is vital in science because of all the delusional crackpots out there... you know, like the thunderdolts

3- unless you find a reputable journal link to share that study, it aint a study. it's pseudoscience masquerading as legit science
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2016
jonesdumb? I showed you "ONE" peer-reviewed paper which discusses electric discharge that according to you "has never been written up". It's never been considered by "anyone who counts". I guess you don't think Tommy Gold, Alex Dessler, nor Anthony Peratt are "anyone who counts"...
Let me guess, the plasma arc discharge to which they refer isn't really an electric discharge, it's an "electric discharge". Is that correct?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2016
Oh, I see Cap'n Stoopid has chimed in, what does he have to say?

Captain Stumpy 3 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2016
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ...

Shucks! I guess I'll never know the incoherent dribbling.

Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2016
@cd85
incoherent dribbling

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2016
@cd85

incoherent dribbling


"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

First of all, have you read any of her babblings? Cap'n Stoopid's type of stupid is certainly contagious. All who wander too closely will too suffer from her terminal stoopidity. Vietkiller obviously succumbed to this affliction seeing as he's no longer stalking me. The Cap'n too will succumb shortly, although it looks as if she will take a few more with him, you being included.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2016
And still, no response from jonesdumb regarding the linked peer-reviewed paper that discusses arc discharges. Not surprising in his absence.

Just in case Cap'n Stoopid wasn't aware that the "experts" that he relies on over at the PPPL as his defacto "proof" that the mainstreamers are aware of plasma physics have broken their fusion reactor. And they don't know what's wrong with it. That's what happens when astrophysicists get involved, nothing.

https://www.yahoo...375.html

No problem though, the folks over at LPP (http://lppfusion.com/) do know their plasma physics, and the experiments continue on schedule.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2016
And still, no response from jonesdumb regarding the linked peer-reviewed paper that discusses arc discharges. Not surprising in his absence. blah blah blah....


Nobody is talking about unobserved plasma discharges - YOU were talking about EDM (Google it) causing the putative plumes on Europa. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. It is not causing volcanoes on Io, it is not causing plumes on Enceladus nor, if they exist, on Europa. Nor any comets, either. Read the idiot Thornhill's electric comet poster from 2006, if you want to know what sort of discharge the EU nutjobs are talking about.
You're original quote, to which I replied:
Another world with EDM as the likely process which creates the plumes.


So, like I said, show me a paper where somebody suggests EDM as a cause of volcanoes on Io, or plumes on icy moons, or outgassing at a comet. Also show me some evidence. Peratt himself says the volcanoes are caused by tidal heating. In the abstract! Read it.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2016
Plasma discharge= electric discharge; two terms which are interchangeable when the medium is plasma.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2016
Plasma discharge= electric discharge; two terms which are interchangeable when the medium is plasma.



And since when does 'electric discharge' (i.e.lightning) = Electric Discharge Machining*? Please show me the evidence.

*EDM = a human controlled mechanism, using very short pulses of electricity, from very short range, under oil, onto a conducting surface. Or are you talking about something completely different, and just confusing your terminology?
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 03, 2016
@cd85
Vietkiller obviously succumbed to this affliction seeing as he's no longer stalking me.

You are a piece of vomit, cd85.
And insane as well.
It is time a moderator flushes you into the sewer where you belong.

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.