Mysterious 'lunar swirls' point to moon's volcanic, magnetic past

Mysterious 'lunar swirls' point to moon's volcanic, magnetic past
Sonia Tikoo, an assistant professor in Rutgers-New Brunswick's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, looks at moon rock samples in a Petri dish. Credit: Nick Romanenko/Rutgers University

The mystery behind lunar swirls, one of the solar system's most beautiful optical anomalies, may finally be solved thanks to a joint Rutgers University and University of California Berkeley study.

The solution hints at the dynamism of the moon's ancient past as a place with volcanic activity and an internally generated . It also challenges our picture of the moon's existing geology.

Lunar swirls resemble bright, snaky clouds painted on the moon's dark surface. The most famous, called Reiner Gamma, is about 40 miles long and popular with backyard astronomers. Most lunar swirls share their locations with powerful, localized magnetic fields. The bright-and-dark patterns may result when those magnetic fields deflect particles from the solar wind and cause some parts of the to weather more slowly.

"But the cause of those magnetic fields, and thus of the swirls themselves, had long been a mystery," said Sonia Tikoo, coauthor of the study recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research—Planets and an assistant professor in Rutgers University-New Brunswick's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences. "To solve it, we had to find out what kind of geological feature could produce these magnetic fields—and why their magnetism is so powerful."

Working with what is known about the intricate geometry of lunar swirls, and the strengths of the magnetic fields associated with them, the researchers developed mathematical models for the geological "magnets." They found that each must stand above a magnetic object that is narrow and buried close to the moon's surface.

The picture is consistent with , long, narrow structures formed by flowing lava during volcanic eruptions; or with lava dikes, vertical sheets of magma injected into the lunar crust.

Mysterious 'lunar swirls' point to moon's volcanic, magnetic past
The Reiner Gamma lunar swirl from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Credit: NASA LRO WAC science team

But this raised another question: How could lava tubes and dikes be so strongly magnetic? The answer lies in a reaction that may be unique to the moon's environment at the time of those ancient eruptions, over 3 billion years ago.

Past experiments have found that many moon rocks become highly magnetic when heated more than 600 degrees Celsius in an oxygen-free environment. That's because certain minerals break down at high temperatures and release metallic iron. If there happens to be a strong enough magnetic nearby, the newly formed iron will become magnetized along the direction of that field.

This doesn't normally happen on earth, where free-floating oxygen binds with the iron. And it wouldn't happen today on the moon, where there is no global magnetic field to magnetize the iron.

But in a study published last year, Tikoo found that the moon's ancient magnetic field lasted 1 billion to 2.5 billion years longer than had previously been thought—perhaps concurrent with the creation of lava tubes or dikes whose high iron content would have become strongly magnetic as they cooled.

"No one had thought about this reaction in terms of explaining these unusually strong magnetic features on the . This was the final piece in the puzzle of understanding the magnetism that underlies these lunar swirls," Tikoo said.

The next step would be to actually visit a lunar swirl and study it directly. Tikoo serves on a committee that is proposing a rover mission to do just that.


Explore further

Unexpected activity on the moon

More information: Douglas J. Hemingway et al, Lunar Swirl Morphology Constrains the Geometry, Magnetization, and Origins of Lunar Magnetic Anomalies, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets (2018). DOI: 10.1029/2018JE005604
Provided by Rutgers University
Citation: Mysterious 'lunar swirls' point to moon's volcanic, magnetic past (2018, September 6) retrieved 20 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-09-mysterious-lunar-swirls-moon-volcanic.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
135 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 06, 2018
Hey! I bet EU can explain this. Nyet?

Sep 06, 2018
I would say that this article actually gives a minor confirmation in that they have found a discrete mechanism to show ion deflection from magnetic fossils frozen in the surface structures.

I would never try to say that All Processes are from Electric or electromagnetic effects, obviously gravity plays a huge part, but more and more we are developing instruments that guide us in the directions of which to study, and THEY are showing us a wider effect of electric, electromagnetic and magnetic effects within stars, star clusters, molecular clouds, black holes and neutron stars as well as dwarf galaxies and the various different constructions of galaxies which is almost like nuclear fusion on a Grandiose Scale and slowed down nearly to a standstill. And on THAT Scale, charge plays an out-sized effect on the matter it interacts with and we know that to a high degree.

Most of us true EU folks just insist there is a combined effect, not exclusively gravitational attraction.

Sep 07, 2018
@Steelwolf

I completely agree.

The idea that the observed magnetism at these lunar swirls is caused by ancient lava tubules from a more magnetic past is completely ad hoc and conjecture at this point. I just see so much electromagnetic phenomena around our solar system tossed in favor of sub-surface, unobservable mechanisms.

However, I do like that Tikoo doesn't stop there and rather looks forward to visiting the site and directly probing the surface to test his hypothesis.

Sep 07, 2018
I just see so much electromagnetic phenomena around our solar system tossed in favor of sub-surface, unobservable mechanisms.


Unlikely. What you probably mean is that you see phenomena that you have no valid scientific explanation for, that is far likelier to be something else, or has already been proven to be something else. And then, building on your misunderstanding, you try to tie it in with some EU Velikovskian woo.


Sep 07, 2018
The idea that the observed magnetism at these lunar swirls is caused by ancient lava tubules from a more magnetic past is completely ad hoc and conjecture at this point.


And makes scientific sense, and is in the scientific literature, authored by a scientist that is qualified to know what she is talking about, likely having spent at least 5 years at university.
Now, what ideas do you have, who is coming up with them, and what are their qualifications?

Earth orbiting Saturn, anyone?


Sep 07, 2018



And makes scientific sense, and is in the scientific literature, authored by a scientist that is qualified to know what she is talking about, likely having spent at least 5 years at university.



Plenty of credible scientists form hypotheses which fail. And plenty more form hypotheses which are deemed accurate, only to fail later when more direct observations are attained.
Assuming an idea from a credible individual must be correct is a fallacy.

Dirty snowball anyone? Softened relief, few if any craters, covered with obvious vents... this doesn't sound like the comets we've observed.

Please direct me to one image showing an obvious outgassing vent shaping the collimated jets we observe emanating from cometary surfaces.

It's ok jonesdave, people can come to different conclusions given the same information.

Sep 07, 2018
Plenty of credible scientists form hypotheses which fail. And plenty more form hypotheses which are deemed accurate, only to fail later when more direct observations are attained.
Assuming an idea from a credible individual must be correct is a fallacy.


I didn't say it was correct - I said it was scientifically viable.

Dirty snowball anyone? Softened relief, few if any craters, covered with obvious vents... this doesn't sound like the comets we've observed.


Really? Who said that is what a comet would look like? I think you're getting confused with what the idiot Thornhill said that the mainstream expected. Two different things.

Please direct me to one image showing an obvious outgassing vent shaping the collimated jets we observe emanating from cometary surfaces.


Sorry? What else do you think they are? Beyond any doubt whatsoever, they are gas and dust. As proven.

Whatever conclusion you have come to is not based on science.


Sep 07, 2018
Dirty snowball anyone?


People in glasshouses, Rossim! Tut, tut. Perhaps you can point to anything that EU wooists have ever got right about comets? I'll save you the time - zilch. On the other hand, I could post a squillion characters on Thornhill's lies, obfuscation, omissions, misrepresentations, and failed predictions re comets.

Sep 07, 2018


Sorry? What else do you think they are? Beyond any doubt whatsoever, they are gas and dust. As proven.



I have no objection here. There is most definitely gas and dust.

But that's not what I asked. Direct me to an image displaying the nozzle-like vents. Cometary surfaces should be littered with them, right?

Sep 07, 2018


Sorry? What else do you think they are? Beyond any doubt whatsoever, they are gas and dust. As proven.



I have no objection here. There is most definitely gas and dust.

But that's not what I asked. Direct me to an image displaying the nozzle-like vents. Cometary surfaces should be littered with them, right?


They are. Such as in fractured cliffs, fractured surfaces, circular structures. You can see a few in the image here:

https://www.space...era.html

Indeed, it is from one of the circular structures that the jet in that picture is coming from. Not sure what your point is. It ain't electric woo, which is what the loons at EU predicted.

Sep 07, 2018
Anybody who wants to look at thousands and thousands of images of comet 67P, can do so here;

https://imagearch...esa.int/

Sep 07, 2018

Dirty snowball anyone? Softened relief, few if any craters, covered with obvious vents... this doesn't sound like the comets we've observed.

Really? Who said that is what a comet would look like?


"The concept that comets are truly like terrestrial snow in density is highly attractive..."

"... the sunlit areas appear much like the terminator on the Moon, suggesting a cratered surface. Just how such a structure came into being is a fascinating and important problem of cometary physics"

"It seemed to me that the encounters would produce compression that would compact the 'snow' to higher and higher densities."

"found support for the idea of Mendis et al (1981) that electrostatic effects of the solar wind can raise dust on the night side of a cometary nucleus."

- Fred Whipple, The cometary nucleus: Current concepts (1986)


Sep 07, 2018
Anybody who wants to look at thousands and thousands of images of comet 67P, can do so here;

https://imagearch...esa.int/


We all know where to find images of cometary surfaces.

I'm asking you to direct me to one that shows a vent. I'll save you the time - zilch.

Sep 07, 2018
I'm asking you to direct me to one that shows a vent. I'll save you the time - zilch.


Are you blind? I gave you a link. Here it is again;

https://www.space...era.html

What the hell is your point? Make it, or shut up.

Sep 07, 2018

Dirty snowball anyone? Softened relief, few if any craters, covered with obvious vents... this doesn't sound like the comets we've observed.

Really? Who said that is what a comet would look like?


"The concept that comets are truly like terrestrial snow in density is highly attractive..."

"... the sunlit areas appear much like the terminator on the Moon, suggesting a cratered surface. Just how such a structure came into being is a fascinating and important problem of cometary physics"

"It seemed to me that the encounters would produce compression that would compact the 'snow' to higher and higher densities."

"found support for the idea of Mendis et al (1981) that electrostatic effects of the solar wind can raise dust on the night side of a cometary nucleus."

- Fred Whipple, The cometary nucleus: Current concepts (1986)



And........ ? Make your point and stop fannying about.

Sep 07, 2018
Fred Whipple, The cometary nucleus: Current concepts (1986)


In 1986. Was this before or after Halley? And of what relevance is it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When astronomers view the comas of comets spectroscopically, what they actually see is the hydroxyl radical (OH), which they assume to be a residue of water (H2O) broken down by the ultraviolet light of the Sun (photolysis).


The idiot Thornhill, 2006.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detection of Water Vapor in Halley's Comet, 1986.
Mumma, M. J. et al.
http://science.sc...757/1523

Did the old fraud ever apologise for this blatant lie? And for his inability to locate dozens of other definitive detections between 1986 & 2006 in the literature?


Sep 07, 2018
I'm asking you to direct me to one that shows a vent. I'll save you the time - zilch.


Are you blind? I gave you a link. Here it is again;

https://www.space...era.html

What the hell is your point? Make it, or shut up.


Uhhh... you originally gave me a link to the ESA gallery and now a different one to a space.com article.

Great, that is a phenomenal image of a cometary jet. Really, amazing. The source of the jet is a vertical wall. Please notice I didn't say vent, but rather a wall. That's interesting.

"likely originated from the comet's insides, maybe from ancient gas vents or unseen ice."

Ahhh... ancient gas vents or unseen ice.

My point written out so you can more easily grasp the concept:
There are no remnants of a vent observed. There are no obvious holes leading to sub-surface pockets of ice. There are no nozzle-like vents which 'must' exist to form collimated jets of materials.

Sep 07, 2018
Uhhh... you originally gave me a link to the ESA gallery and now a different one to a space.com article.


You have answered my question - you are blind! Have a look at the post before the one in which I gave the ESA link. See it yet? Jesus.


Sep 07, 2018

My point written out so you can more easily grasp the concept:
There are no remnants of a vent observed. There are no obvious holes leading to sub-surface pockets of ice. There are no nozzle-like vents which 'must' exist to form collimated jets of materials.


WTF is your point? I grasp that you have zero knowledge of cometary science, other than the crap from the liar Thornhill. If you cannot see vents in that image tough sh!t. I'll ask again; the jets are dust and gas (and ice, in this case). Some of them are collimated. There are numerous ways that can happen. Read the bloody literature instead of woo sites. So, what are you suggesting. Very simple question. What do you, the cometary expert, suggest is causing the collimation? If you have no idea, which is highly likely, then go away.

Sep 07, 2018
Most lunar swirls share their locations with powerful, localized magnetic fields.

This is evidence of electric currents as being the causative source of these geological "anomalies". The volcanic processes are a result of the electric currents.

Sep 07, 2018
Most lunar swirls share their locations with powerful, localized magnetic fields.

This is evidence of electric currents as being the causative source of these geological "anomalies". The volcanic processes are a result of the electric currents.


Lol. The idiocy of these loons!

Sep 07, 2018
The source of the jet is a vertical wall. Please notice I didn't say vent, but rather a wall. That's interesting.


Yep, definitely blind;

The plume originated from a 20-m-diameter, roundish depression (D1) bounded to the southwest by a steep wall R of a few metres height and ∼20 m length, to the north-east by a row of larger boulders (B1) and to the south-east by a single large and roundish boulder B2 (Figs 2 and 12).


Evidence of sub-surface energy storage in comet 67P from the outburst of 2016 July 03
Agarwal, J. et al.
https://academic..../4565550

Free. No excuse not to have read it before making crap up.


Sep 07, 2018
Might be worth reading this, as well;

Summer fireworks on comet 67P
Vincent, J-B. et al.
https://academic..../2633381

Sep 07, 2018
Given the pathetic record of predictions and all the required magic of dirty snowball guesses folks like jonesdumb feel it is needed to vigorously defend their snowball beliefs to remain relevant. This usually involves name calling, logical fallacies, and the rest of the childishness he displays in these threads. Not to mention his optional use of known scientific definitions.

Sep 07, 2018
Given the pathetic record of predictions and all the required magic of dirty snowball guesses folks like jonesdumb feel it is needed to vigorously defend their snowball beliefs to remain relevant. This usually involves name calling, logical fallacies, and the rest of the childishness he displays in these threads. Not to mention his optional use of known scientific definitions.


Sorry? What predictions? What magic? Care to answer? Backed up by scientific literature, of course.
And then I'll list all the predictions of the EU loons, and how every single one of them was either wrong, or already known.


Sep 07, 2018
What predictions?

https://www.getty...24213022
LOL!


What has that got to do with anything? We've known since 1986 that comets are very dark. At least Whipple got the model pretty much correct - ice and dust. The idiots Thornhill and Talbott got it totally wrong, despite having far more data to work with. Whipple = science; T & T = mythology. Science wins every time. As shown.

Sep 07, 2018
LOL, Whipple's utter and complete failure is claimed as a successful prediction by jonesdumb. Bizarro World is jonesdumb's home.

Sep 07, 2018
LOL, Whipple's utter and complete failure is claimed as a successful prediction by jonesdumb. Bizarro World is jonesdumb's home.


Sorry, thicko? Want me to link to his paper, you ignorant oaf? He said it was composed of ice and dust. What are comets composed of, dummy?
Now, what did the idiots T & t tell us? Oh, yes, the ever so believable tripe that it was rock (wrong) and was blasted off of a planet some time recently. Possibly when Earth was orbiting Saturn, and Venus was doing handbrake turns around the solar system. And the jets of gas, dust and ice were actually electric discharges caused by EDM. Lol.
Now tell me boys and girls - who is looking stupid here?

Sep 07, 2018
LOL, Whipple's utter and complete failure is claimed as a successful prediction by jonesdumb. Bizarro World is jonesdumb's home.


Figured out what a voltmeter is yet, genius?

Sep 07, 2018


The plume originated from a 20-m-diameter, roundish depression (D1) bounded to the southwest by a steep wall R of a few metres height and �Ľ20 m length, to the north-east by a row of larger boulders (B1) and to the south-east by a single large and roundish boulder B2 (Figs 2 and 12).


Free. No excuse not to have read it before making crap up.



The EU would claim that a jet is essentially eroding the edges of craters and cliff walls, removing dust and producing gas, as charge exchange occurs between the cometary surface and the solar wind.

The mainstream would say that the warming of sub-surface ices causes violent sublimation.

In order to form the collimated jets, the gas would have to exit the surface in VENTS. Confined, walled, nozzle-like tunnels. These are outbursts, not diffuse leaks of gas through the space between pebbles of a porous surface.

A depression is not a vent.

Sep 07, 2018
The EU would claim that a jet is essentially eroding the edges of craters and cliff walls, removing dust and producing gas, as charge exchange occurs between the cometary surface and the solar wind.

The mainstream would say that the warming of sub-surface ices causes violent sublimation.

In order to form the collimated jets, the gas would have to exit the surface in VENTS. Confined, walled, nozzle-like tunnels. These are outbursts, not diffuse leaks of gas through the space between pebbles of a porous surface.

A depression is not a vent.


Sorry, but that is a pile of crap. As expected.

What frigging discharges? Where were they measured by RPC-MAG? They would be sodding obvious. They didn't happen, woo boy.

And WTF is CXing with the solar wind? Dust? Huh? VIRTIS and MIRO both see H2O from 0 meters upwards. Philae saw it on the surface. Ice is seen on the surface. H2O and CO2........

Sep 07, 2018
..............Cliffs are seen to collapse, and ice is exposed on the resulting talus. The solar wind is not getting within 100s of km of the nucleus when it is most active. There is a diamagnetic cavity when it is most active. There is no rock. As (not) detected by several instruments. When an impactor smashed into Tempel 1 it threw out solid ice, water vapour and dust. When Hartley 2 was visited it was surrounded by bloody great chunks of ice. Its jets were cold CO2 gas entraining water ice. Et bloody cetera.
Now, go look at the Rosetta papers, and show me some evidence for this EU crap.

Sep 07, 2018
A depression is not a vent.


And a bunch of cold, neutral gas, entraining ice, is not a sodding electric discharge, you loon.

Sep 07, 2018
In order to form the collimated jets, the gas would have to exit the surface in VENTS.


Really? Says who? And what are their qualifications and experience in cometary science? Where have they written it up?

Sep 07, 2018
And a bunch of cold, neutral gas, entraining ice, is not a sodding electric discharge, you loon.

Yes it is, you can tell by the collimation of the jets. It's a cold cathode discharge.

Sep 07, 2018
In order to form the collimated jets, the gas would have to exit the surface in VENTS.

Really? Says who? And what are their qualifications and experience in cometary science?


Uhhh...

An alternative model to explain elevated gas production rates is a pressurized sub-surface reservoir that VENTS into vacuum through a small opening

This is from the article you cited.
They go on...
As such a high mass loading is inconsistent with the observed dust velocities, the free sublimation of water ice alone cannot explain the observed dust production.

We conclude that the release of energy stored in the sub-surface must have supported the acceleration of dust.

The measurements of July 03 provide reasonably robust evidence that the event was driven by a process more vigorous than the free sublimation of ice and that some form of energy stored in the sub-surface must have supported direct solar irradiation in accelerating dust.


Sep 07, 2018
And a bunch of cold, neutral gas, entraining ice, is not a sodding electric discharge, you loon.

Yes it is, you can tell by the collimation of the jets. It's a cold cathode discharge.


Hahahahahahaha. Where is this sh!t written up, woo boy? Hmmm? Who wrote this garbage? What is their experience with cometary science? Or any other ****ing science?
Nope, just a bunch of Velikovskian crap. And I suppose these non-existent discharges are also undetectable to instruments that would detect them? And just happen to resemble precisely what we would expect to see from sublimating volatiles? Christ you people are gullible! You've been conned! Acknowledge it, and move on. Dear me.

Sep 07, 2018


Uhhh...
An alternative model to explain elevated gas production rates is a pressurized sub-surface reservoir that VENTS into vacuum through a small opening


Yada, yada, yada.
Nope, that is just you failing to understand the paper. The dust velocity was higher than could be explained by free sublimation from the surface. Given that we see what look like vents in the area, and another of them is known to have been active, then sub-surface release is a reasonable assumption. You will notice that the other paper I linked mentions numerous mechanisms for outbursts. However, the other ones didn't show anomalous dust velocities. So, no need for sub-surface vents..................
Jesus, have you ever read a paper on cometary science?

Sep 07, 2018
Here, have some more reading;

Are fractured cliffs the source of cometary dust jets?
Insights from OSIRIS/Rosetta at 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Vincent, J-B. et al
https://www.aanda...9-15.pdf

Now, can we please see an explanation of what is accelerating neutral gas, ice and dust away from the comet in woo-woo land?

Sep 07, 2018
have you ever read a paper on cometary pseudoscience?

Fixed that for you jonesdumb.

Sep 07, 2018
have you ever read a paper on cometary pseudoscience?

Fixed that for you jonesdumb.


Sorry, what observations would you like me to link to to back up the science?
Now, what sh1t have you got to offer, other than scientifically impossible crap, dreamed up by Velikovskian tossers? Hmmm? None, would be the answer to that. Correct?
Lots of instruments on that craft, and others. Figure out what your woo would show up as, and go look for it. Otherwise you are still in a science-free zone, n'est-ce pas?

Sep 07, 2018
Sorry, what observations would you like me to link to to back up the science?

What, like this?
'Unexpected and significant findings in comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: an interdisciplinary view'
http://mnras.oxfo...beb05c09

The contents of which discuss;
THE NUCLEUS SHAPE
"The shape of the nucleus of 67P (Preusker et al. 2015; Thomas et al. 2015a) was largely unexpected."
A HIGH DUST-TO-WATER RATIO
Oops, where is all the water?
ACTIVE AREAS HARD TO FIND
"Many comet nuclei observed in situ show a bilobate shape, very far indeed from a sphere. This implies that ground-based observations should not be used to infer how dust and gas is ejected from the nucleus of a comet. Nevertheless, it is a traditional assumption..."
NO DISTRIBUTED WATER SOURCES
Where's the water?
SEASONS DRIVE ACTUAL ACTIVITY
Due to charge build up, and explains dust transport.

TBC...


Sep 07, 2018
Cont...

THERMO-PHYSICAL MODELS FAIL
"This proves that all the water-vapour is coming from the uppermost surface layer..."
Just where one would expect the electrochemistry to occur...
67P ORIGIN AND COLLISIONAL HISTORY
A data dichotomy, unresolved without ad hoc guessing.
FIRST LINK TO MOLECULAR CLOUDS
It's a link to cathode discharging.
67P PLASMA
"The solar wind could still reach the nucleus and sputtering was observed..."
Sputtering, but not "sputtering".
"Around the approach to perihelion, the formation of a diamagnetic cavity, as observed at 1P/Halley by Giotto, but due to the lower activity of 67P, was expected at much closer distances, 50–100km from the nucleus. Navigation issues meant that Rosetta was flying trajectories above 150km around perihelion, but still the cavity was detected. It is not yet clear if this is related to activity or the dynamic nature of the boundary."
More unexpected stuff and dynamic boundaries. Double layers...

TBC...

Sep 07, 2018
Cont...

And the conclusion?

"The dust particles detected by the Rosetta Mission are forcing us to a real change of paradigm..."

Yep, successful predictions abound. It's nothing like a dirty snowball.

Sep 07, 2018
Lol. And there is absolutely no evidence for any of Thornhills impossible crap, is there? Where are your discharges? Where is your rock? And there were no double layers. Not even close. No 'electrochemistry'. Sputtering has been explained to you, but you are too stupid to understand it. Cathode discharging! Oh dear, what a burke! Etc, etc.
In short you've got nothing, have you? As was the case before the mission, so it was afterwards. Not a single piece of evidence. Not a single discharge detected. Lots of ice detected. No rock detected.
It couldn't have gone any worse for you wackos, could it? Very predictably.
Tell me - why do you continue to follow the proven liar Thornhill? I'm guessing it's some sort of quasi-religious thing. Yes?

Sep 07, 2018
Come on, fruitloops, this spacecraft was in orbit for over 2 years. There must be over a 1000 papers published by now. Surely you can find something? No? Oh well, never mind; it was a dumb idea in the first place, and had already been debunked.
EDM! Lol. You have to laugh at people who could possibly believe stuff like that.

Sep 08, 2018
Speaking of liars, jonesdumb is a prime example;
http://www.esa.in.../(print)
"THE SURPRISING COMET"

"Rosetta has completely changed our picture of comets," says Eberhard Grün, an interdisciplinary scientist working on the Rosetta mission at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.

"Previously, they were pictured as dirty ice balls – or, as some prefer, icy dust balls – but now we know them, or at least this one, to be geologically complex worlds where a myriad of processes are at work creating the incredible surface structure and activity of the comet."

So basically the entire edifice of the dirty snowball was falsified yet jonesdumb claims scientific success. Laughable moron.


Sep 08, 2018
So basically the entire edifice of the dirty snowball was falsified yet jonesdumb claims scientific success. Laughable moron.



Sorry? What he is saying, you moron, is that the previous picture was of dust + ice, and not much more, due to the previous missions being only fly-bys. They are still dust + ice, you idiot, but with a whole lot more stuff. Which is hardly surprising, given how long they were there, and the instruments they had.
It is still a bunch of dust + ice. That hasn't changed. And if you think anything they have discovered has anything to do with EU crap, then you are the one who is lying, yes? If not, point it out.

Sep 08, 2018
I will repeat;

"So basically the entire edifice of the dirty snowball was falsified yet jonesdumb claims scientific success. Laughable moron."

Nice attempt at putting words in his mouth, but he is clear.

Sep 08, 2018
I will repeat;

"So basically the entire edifice of the dirty snowball was falsified yet jonesdumb claims scientific success. Laughable moron."

Nice attempt at putting words in his mouth, but he is clear.


No, it isn't clear, moron. Please point to the non-detection of dust. Please point to the non-detection of ices. Comet = dust + ice. Show me where I'm wrong.

Sep 08, 2018
@Steel
but more and more we are developing instruments that guide us in the directions of which to study, and THEY are showing us a wider effect of electric, electromagnetic and magnetic effects
think about that comment for a moment and you will realise that this is how science works and why the eu fails at science

science made a hypothesis and developed equipment to test it
this hypothesis included plasma and other EM, otherwise, why wouldn't bother to build the sensors?
moreover, this is demonstrative of why mainstream science succeeds - they don't make definitive statements about things (like a BH) without evidence
Most of us true EU folks just insist there is a combined effect
and again, this is what separates the eu from mainstream science
scientists already acknowledge plasma physics - this has been proven over and over again on this site alone

which makes me wonder: why cling to eu when mainstream science is following the evidence?

Sep 08, 2018
....which makes me wonder: why cling to eu when mainstream science is following the evidence?


.....and EU has nobody remotely qualified to understand the science?

Sep 08, 2018
Please point to the non-detection of dust. Please point to the non-detection of ices. Comet = dust + ice.

The point is, how the measured quantities do not match the predictions set forth by your "quantifiable" guesses. That is how you test hypotheses. The predictions don't match the observations, you don't just get to then adjust your guesses to then agree with the observations and claim success. Applied scientists would be laughed at and ridiculed if they did "science" like most astrophysicists. Grun made an honest statement, jonesdumb is just threatened by it.

Sep 08, 2018
Please point to the non-detection of dust. Please point to the non-detection of ices. Comet = dust + ice.

The point is, how the measured quantities do not match the predictions set forth by your "quantifiable" guesses. That is how you test hypotheses. The predictions don't match the observations, you don't just get to then adjust your guesses to then agree with the observations and claim success. Applied scientists would be laughed at and ridiculed if they did "science" like most astrophysicists. Grun made an honest statement, jonesdumb is just threatened by it.


No, I've read the paper. There is a higher dust: ice ratio than previously thought. It is still composed of dust and ice. What has been falsified?

Sep 08, 2018
No, I've read the paper.

I doubt it, the conclusion;
"The classical model of comets as dirty ice balls (Whipple 1950)has focused most models of comets on ices. The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear. With 67P's dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside. Jean-Pierre Bibring proposes a new word naming this stuff, 'organic(e)s', where the modest content of ices (within brackets) well summarizes the dominant non-volatile component. Between the sizes of 0.1 and 1 mm, 99% of the dust mass is in the form of compact particles, denser than the nucleus. This implies that much of the nucleus mass is in the form of mineral aggregates (silicates and sulfides), so that a better definition may be 'mineral organic(e)s'. The balanced analysis of ices, minerals and organic matter will help us to understand these objects and their origin."

TBC...

Sep 08, 2018
Lol. ^^^^^Quoting from a paper that destroys his electric comet idiocy! Irony, or what?

Sep 08, 2018
Cont...

"...The Rosetta Mission confirms that 67P is an extreme mixture of volatile ices formed in very cold regions, and of minerals partly coming from the inner hot proto-solar nebula. The observed structure of the nucleus of 67P has already allowed us to better constrain how the scattered discwas formed. The dust particles detected by the Rosetta Mission are forcing us to a real change ofparadigm, regardingwhich collisions really occurred during the accretion of the Solar system in and beyond the Uranus–Neptune region."

Doesn't bode well on any layer. Dirty snowball is dead!

Sep 08, 2018
Lol. ^^^^^Quoting from a paper that destroys his electric comet idiocy! Irony, or what?

'Fraid not poopsie, it destroys your dirty snowball. And there isn't a single mention of the electric comet theory, although it does explicitly suggest your paradigm is dead.

Sep 08, 2018
The Rosetta Mission confirms that 67P is an extreme mixture of volatile ices formed in very cold regions, and of minerals partly coming from the inner hot proto-solar nebula.


And which part of that is inconsistent with what was known before? And which part of it doesn't completely destroy the woo dreamed up by the idiots Thornhill and Talbott?
And nobody has used Whipple's model for decades. It was basically right, and has been fine tuned as we gathered ever more data from fly-by missions. The only people who are clinging to the dirty snowball model are EU. It is still a damn sight closer to reality than the nonsense they came up with, isn't it? So, I'm afraid that there was no 'dirty snowball' model to falsify, except in the minds of unqualified cranks.


Sep 08, 2018
Lol. ^^^^^Quoting from a paper that destroys his electric comet idiocy! Irony, or what?

'Fraid not poopsie, it destroys your dirty snowball. And there isn't a single mention of the electric comet theory, although it does explicitly suggest your paradigm is dead.


No, it doesn't, idiot. Where is the known fact that comets are composed of ice and dust shown to be wrong? Where is that claimed. Point to it, dumbo.
And there is no mention of the electric comet theory because it doesn't exist.

Sep 08, 2018
So, let us summarise the basics of what we knew, and surmised, before the Rosetta mission;

Comets are composed of dust and ice. Probably organics, too, as per Halley.
Comets formed in the colder reaches of the protoplanetary disk.
They sublimate said ices as they approach the Sun. This also carries the dust.
They have densities much lower than water.
Ice is rare on the surface (obviously) so must be subsurface, as confirmed at Tempel 1.
The solar wind will not reach the nucleus at the most active times.
The IMF will also be excluded.

Now, that is the very basics. Which part of that has been falsified?

Sep 08, 2018
And which part of that is inconsistent with what was known before?

"The more we visit comets, the dustier they appear."
"With 67P's dust-to-water ratio of 6 (and possibly larger), it is now necessary to spend much more time in modelling the non-volatile matrices with a modest content of ices inside."
"Between the sizes of 0.1 and 1 mm, 99% of the dust mass is in the form of compact particles, denser than the nucleus. This implies that much of the nucleus mass is in the form of mineral aggregates (silicates..."
i.e. rocks
"The dust particles detected by the Rosetta Mission are forcing us to a real change of paradigm"
It's not only inconsistent, it is dead!
And which part of it doesn't completely destroy the woo dreamed up by the idiots...

All the established parameters are based on the dirty comet paradigm. The assumptions as to how they arrive at the belief of hot/cold origin of dirty snowballs is meaningless in the analysis of the electric comet.

Sep 08, 2018

All the established parameters are based on the dirty comet paradigm. The assumptions as to how they arrive at the belief of hot/cold origin of dirty snowballs is meaningless in the analysis of the electric comet.


Sorry, what a waste of pixels. I said what part of the points I made have been falsified. You haven't found a single one, you loon. Comets are composed of dust and ice. As proven. Nobody has believed for a very long time (other than the idiot Thornhill) that a comet was just a giant snowball with a bit of dust on the outside! Read the papers from Tempel 1, in 2005. What do they say about the dust/ ice ratio?
Go back to Halley, in 1986. What colour was it?

I'm sorry, but you loons have been trying to shoot down strawmen of your own making, and are still living in a science-free zone. Zero evidence, zero viable mechanisms, zero scientists, zero publications.

Sep 08, 2018
All the established parameters are based on the dirty comet paradigm.


No, they aren't you idiot. Read just that very basic paper again. The maximum temperature that 67P could ever have reached is 90 K. That is science, not an assumption. The D/H ratio of the water is nothing like the solar wind, or Earth. That is science, not assumption. The density is ~ 500 kg.m^3. That is science, not assumption. There is subsurface ice. Again, science, not assumption. There is no rock. Science, not assumption.
Your problem is that you don't appear to know what science is.
The electric comet woo is long dead. As soon as that impactor hit Tempel 1, that was it. Goodnight nurse. The only people that believe it are scientifically illiterate, quasi-religious Velikovskian cultists. There is no science behind it. And no evidence for it. And a tonne against it.
In short, it is complete gibberish.

Sep 08, 2018
This implies that much of the nucleus mass is in the form of mineral aggregates (silicates..."
i.e. rocks


And see, there you go again, making sh1t up. Do you ever stop? Is your faith in this cult so entrenched that you have to lie on their behalf? Rocks are not 0.1 - 1.0 mm in size! Rock does not collapse showing ice left behind, and on the fresh faces of the 'boulders'. Rock does not return a signature as seen by CONSERT. It does not have a thermal inertia as measured by MIRO and MUPUS. It does not have a density as measured at 67P. Etc, etc. Quit with the fairy tales.


Sep 08, 2018
The maximum temperature that 67P could ever have reached is 90 K. That is science, not an assumption.

Yep, conclusions based on assumptions.

The D/H ratio of the water is nothing like the solar wind, or Earth. That is science, not assumption.

Conclusions based on assumptions.
The density is ~ 500 kg.m^3. That is science, not assumption.

Conclusions clearly based on interpretations and assumptions.
There is subsurface ice. Again, science, not assumption.

Assumption based on desperate need to salvage failed guesses.
There is no rock. Science, not assumption.

Dramatic misinterpretation based on assumptions and due to inability to open eyes.

Sep 08, 2018
^^^^^^Sorry, dumbo, that is all science and measurement. If you think otherwise, show where it has been assumed, you clueless fraud.

Sep 08, 2018
The maximum temperature that 67P could ever have reached is 90 K. That is science, not an assumption.

Yep, conclusions based on assumptions.

The D/H ratio of the water is nothing like the solar wind, or Earth. That is science, not assumption.

Conclusions based on assumptions.
The density is ~ 500 kg.m^3. That is science, not assumption.

Conclusions clearly based on interpretations and assumptions.
There is subsurface ice. Again, science, not assumption.

Assumption based on desperate need to salvage failed guesses.
There is no rock. Science, not assumption.

Dramatic misinterpretation based on assumptions and due to inability to open eyes.


Hey cantthink, you aren't the idiot Thornhill in disguise are you? Starting to sound very much like the scientifically illiterate, lying woo merchant. Maybe you all sound the same after a while. That is, like clueless Velikovskian wooists.

Sep 08, 2018
The D/H ratio of the water is nothing like the solar wind, or Earth. That is science, not assumption.


https://hal.archi...document

The maximum temperature that 67P could ever have reached is 90 K. That is science, not an assumption.


https://hal.archi...document

The density is ~ 500 kg.m^3. That is science, not assumption.


Errm, measured by Doppler on the RSI experiment. And, uhh, the spacecraft orbited in bound orbits without crashing. Lol.

There is subsurface ice. Again, science, not assumption.


Far too many papers to link. Take your pick. I would say a shed load of solid ice excavated at Tempel 1 would be a start. And then the pretty pictures of it floating around Hartley 2. Dozens of observations.

There is no rock. Science, not assumption.


Lots of observations by multiple instruments. Want a list?

Sep 08, 2018
Anyway, while we wait for cantthink to totally ignore all the evidence so that he can carry on believing the lying wooist Thornhill, perhaps he's got time to answer this unanswered question from earlier:

Detection of Water Vapor in Halley's Comet, 1986.
Mumma, M. J. et al.
http://science.sc...757/1523

Did the old fraud ever apologise for this blatant lie? And for his inability to locate dozens of other definitive detections between 1986 & 2006 in the literature?


Don't recall the question being answered. Why did he lie, cantthink? We realise he's a fraud, but that really is a bit blatant.


Sep 08, 2018
The D/H ratio of the water is nothing like...blah. blah.

Claims don't take into account changes induced by electric discharge.
The maximum temperature that 67P could ever have reached is 90 K blah blah

Once again, based on assumptions which don't account for electric discharges. Already pointed out molecular oxygen and molecular nitrogen created by electric discharge.

The rest of your blather is also based on assumptions and interpretations.

Sep 08, 2018
Claims don't take into account changes induced by electric discharge.


Hahaha. Calling on something that didn't happen to explain something that blows his nonsense out of the water. Along with a whole lot of other evidence! You have to laugh at these cranks, and their religious obedience to their cult leaders!

Once again, based on assumptions which don't account for electric discharges. Already pointed out molecular oxygen and molecular nitrogen created by electric discharge.


What electric discharges, you idiot? Find them in the data, instead of continually making sh!t up, you fraud. You don't even have a scientific mechanism for these non-existent discharges. Only the say-so of idiots like Thornhill and Talbott.

The rest of your blather is also based on assumptions and interpretations.


No, it isn't, you f***wit, it is based on evidence, something you have none of, otherwise we'd have seen it by now, eh?

Sep 08, 2018
And I still want to know why the idiot Thornhill was lying to you for years. Any idea? No? Just does that sort of thing, does he, the old crank?
Christ you people are pitiful. No science, no evidence, continually making things up for which there is no evidence, and all to support a scientifically impossible load of crap, believed by practically no one, dreamed up by two Velikovskian nutjobs, who wouldn't know science if they fell over it. Seriously pathetic.

Sep 08, 2018
The rest of your blather is also based on assumptions and interpretations.


Yep, we interpreted the calculated density as 500 kg m^3, and took a flier with the bound orbits. Amazing that the gravity behaved just as if the density really were 500 kg m^3. I guess the assumption that the spacecraft didn't crash was wrong! I guess Philae smashed into the ground because it was going far too quickly, even though we assumed the instruments telling us its rate of descent were working properly. I guess that assumption was wrong!
Got any science, woo boy? Or is that it? Invisible, undetectable, impossible electric discharges? Anybody else find that rather unconvincing? Still, they aren't scientists, so we shouldn't be too harsh. If they want to believe in crap................

Sep 09, 2018
The moon looks like it's had virtually no geological activity, ever. So many craters indicating it's early face is still showing clear.

Jones electric discharges in the early (earlier) chaotic universe seem quite possible.


Sep 09, 2018
Myself, i am still stuck with the increased energy NASA identified that our system has moved into. More energy, more reactions. Previously unseen but now seen. Many new interpretations and revelation in medical science have been achieved under this greater energy, as noted in articles under physdotorg. Perhaps the 'event' that created the high energy area of space also was responsible for the PETM here on Earth millions of years ago and has since that time been fading so we no longer see the connection.

Sep 09, 2018
The moon looks like it's had virtually no geological activity, ever. So many craters indicating it's early face is still showing clear.

Jones electric discharges in the early (earlier) chaotic universe seem quite possible.



Then somebody should write it up, yes? Like this lady has written up her hypothesis. And have the whatsits to submit it to a relevant, respectable journal for peer-review. That is all we can ask of people who like to think they understand science. Obviously, that does not include EUists. They just make sh1t up, and stick it on woo sites and Youtube!

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