The Electric Comet theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked

EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteriods and probably created in the same event as asteriods (according to Thunderbolts).


Real universe:
  1. Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
  2. Comets may not have the composition of asteriods
  3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
    "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WPThus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
EC universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.(but according to solrey EDM does not mean EDM in the EC universe!).

Real universe:



Start with Tim Thompson's posts about this
Then look at
EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)

However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are at least 173,583 asteroids (rocky bodies) that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets. This includes asteroids that have been observed for decades.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets


EC universe: solrey pointed out in this post that EC idea expects that the voltage potential a comet experiences would be orders of magnitude higher than that of the cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm (109 volts).
"Several" is more than a couple so the EC idea expects a voltage drop around a comet of at least 1012 volts.

Real universe: tusenfem pointed out that "Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley" by Harri Laakso gave the measured potential drop between electrical layers around Comet Halley as 50 kV in this post. This is 10,000 times less than the thunderstorm potential and 10,000,000 times less that requires by the EC idea.

Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteroids and probably created in the same event as asteroids (according to Thunderbolts). Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material (e.g. water) that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining. Like everything in the EC idea there are no numbers and so no prediction of the composition of the nucleus. We could say that means that the EC idea predicts no water (0%) but there should be some blowback from the physically impossible (on comets) EDM process.
Asteroids in general have very low amounts of water. So let's just throw in 1% water as an extremely generous guess - IMHO it should be something like 0.01%. Sol88 or solrey should provide a better number if they have it.

Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs". The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.


EC universe: Only give qualitative predictions.
Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added).

What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA).

Real universe: Scientific theories model the data mathematically and produce both qualitative and quantitative predictions.




Someone could start with the papers of Whipple
  1. Whipple, Fred L. (1950). "A Comet Model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke". Astrophys. J. 111: 375–394.
  2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464.
  3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750.
and then go ointo the 1000's of scientific papers and many textbooks about comets. Tim Thompson recommened Introduction to Comets by Brandt & Chapman (Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd edition).


EC universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot idea by not publishing papers in peer reviewed journals.
Real universe: Take the risk of being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.
 
Reality Check said:
Thats electromagnetic!
And nothing to do with the stupid electric comet idea.
Click to expand...

Polar jet

While it is still mostly a mystery to physicists how polar jets are formed and powered, the two most often proposed origins of this power are the central object (such as a black hole), and the accretion disk.
Click to expand...

While it is not known exactly how accretion disks manage to produce jets, they are thought to generate tangled magnetic fields that cause the jets to collimate.
Click to expand...

Ahh the 'ol tangeled magnetic field!! umm....where is the electric current that makes these tangeld magnetic fields??
 
How Sol88 cannot stop shooting himself in the foot

The EC idea is that comets are asteriods. So they should have the same composition as asteroids and thus meteorites. Only an idiot would ignore the evidence against this:
But here is another bit of evidence against the EC idea suppied by Sol88:
Sol88 said:
80-50% dust???
How about the "soot" found in these dust samples! http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml
"These forms of carbon don't look like what we find in meteorites, which is something like compacted soot from your chimney. The carbon compounds from this comet are a much more complicated mix of compounds," commented Carnegie's Marc Fries. "It will be an exciting challenge to explain how these compounds formed and wound up in the comet."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)
 
Sol88 said:
Polar jet

Ahh the 'ol tangeled magnetic field!! umm....where is the electric current that makes these tangeld magnetic fields??
Click to expand...
How dumb - derailing your own thread.

But...
The Sun's magnetic field is thought to be a solar dynamo (and there are electric currents!).
There is no reason why simliar processes could not exist during the creation of the Solar System. It would be more turbulent than the since there is a big cloud of plasma collapsing, electric currents going everywhere and thus tangeld magnetic fields.
 
Reality Check said:
The EC idea is that comets are asteriods. So they should have the same composition as asteroids and thus meteorites. Only an idiot would ignore the evidence against this:
But here is another bit of evidence against the EC idea suppied by Sol88:

(emphasis added)
Click to expand...

Arguing with mental midgets get tiresome but still fun!

have the same composition as asteroids and thus meteorites.
Click to expand...

these one you mean


H Chondrites

High Iron (12 to 21% metallic iron) (also called Bronzite Chondrites) 31.4% of falls. Minerals: Olivine, pyroxene, metal, plagioclase, sulfide.
Click to expand...

L Chondrites

Low Iron (5 to 10% metallic iron) (also called Hypersthene Chondrites) 34.8% of falls. Minerals: Olivine, pyroxene, plagioclase, metal, sulfide.
Click to expand...

LL Chondrites

Low Metal Content (about 2% metallic iron) (also called Amphoterites) Principle minerals are bronzite, olivine, and minor oligoclase. 7.2% of falls.
Click to expand...

Among the high temperature materials some are already well known components of primitive meteorites; rocks from asteroids that formed between Mars and Jupiter. These include odd rounded particles called chondrules and white irregular particles known as Calcium Aluminum Inclusions (CAIs). Chondrules are the dominant material in many primitive meteorites and they are rounded droplets of rocks that melted and then quickly cooled as they orbited the Sun. CAIs are much rarer than chondrules and are distinguished by their unusual chemical and isotopic composition. They are also the oldest solar system materials and are composed of exotic minerals that form at the very high temperature.
Click to expand...

Comet ice formed in cold regions beyond the planet Neptune but the rocks, probably the bulk of any comet's mass, formed much closer to the Sun in regions hot enough to evaporate bricks.
Click to expand...
LINK

Mmmm.... I smell trouble for you RC!!

The bulk of the comets mass is drum roll........ROCK the same as observed in meteorites!!!

and this little gem

It was very exciting to find that pieces of CAIs and chondrules in the comet and the scientific implications of this are profound. When we first presented the discovery of comet CAIs at the annual Lunar and Planetary Science conference, just three months after Stardust landed, you could see jaws drop in the room crowded with 600 scientists. It was just phenomenal to discover something this profound, right in the beginning of the analysis program. The discovery of chondrules and CAIs proves that matter abundantly formed in the inner solar system was somehow transported to the edge of the young solar system where comets formed.
Click to expand...

Why would it be profound, RC?
 
Sol88 said:
Arguing with mental midgets get tiresome but still fun!
these one you mean
Click to expand...
Hi there mental midget :D !
Read what you quoted:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml
"These forms of carbon don't look like what we find in meteorites, which is something like compacted soot from your chimney. The carbon compounds from this comet are a much more complicated mix of compounds," commented Carnegie's Marc Fries. "It will be an exciting challenge to explain how these compounds formed and wound up in the comet."
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

Meteorites contain olivine, pyroxene and other neat stuff.
Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contains forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
Thus comets are not meteorites.
Meteorites are asteriods that have reaches the Earth's surface.
Therefore comets are not asteriods.



Sol88 said:
LINK
Click to expand...
The mental midget strikes again :D !
The article is talking about the dust that was collected by Stardust.

Sol88 said:
Mmmm.... I smell trouble for you RC!!
Mmmm.... I smell ignorance and the inability to read from you Sol88!!

Sol88 said:
The bulk of the comets mass is drum roll........ROCK the same as observed in meteorites!!!
Click to expand...
I was right : ignorance and the inability to read from Sol88 :jaw-dropp.

The article never states that the bulk of the comets mass is rock.
Everything in the article is about the dust that they analysed, e.g.
What we found was remarkable! Instead of rocky materials that formed around previous generations of stars we found that most of the comet's rocky matter formed inside our solar system at extremely high temperature. In great contrast to its ice, our comet's rocky material had formed under white-hot conditions.
Click to expand...

Sol88 said:
Why would it be profound, RC?
Click to expand...
Learn to read Sol88.
Because the Stardust results suggest that the proto-solar system was a much more turbulent place than scientists expected, including flows of material from the inner systen to the outer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The totally stupid electric comet idea debunked

EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteriods and probably created in the same event as asteriods (according to Thunderbolts).


Real universe:
  1. Comets have meaured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
  2. Comets may not have the composition of asteriods
  3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
    "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WPThus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
  4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
    Thus comets are not meteorites.
    Meteorites are rocky bodies (meteoroids and sometimes asteroids) that have reached the Earth's surface.
    Therefore comets are not meteoroids or asteriods.
    (or How Sol88 cannot stop shooting himself in the foot)
EC universe: Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining.(but according to solrey EDM does not mean EDM in the EC universe!).

Real universe:




Start with Tim Thompson's posts about this
Then look at
EC universe: Rocky bodies that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value will be comets.N.B. Solar activity may cut tails in two but there have been no observations of comets turning off during low solar activity.(Sol88: I may be wrong - if so please provide the citations to these marvelous events.)

However this assertion has the fatal flaw of EC predictions - no mathematics or numbers.
But we can do their work for them can't we Sol88?

There are 4 observed main-belt comets with a minimum eccentricity of 0.1644 (133P/Elst-Pizarro). So the EC minimim must be this (or lower!).

Real universe: There are at least 173,583 asteroids (rocky bodies) that have an orbit with an eccentricity above a minimum value that are not comets. This includes asteroids that have been observed for decades.
There are 459,893 asteroids with eccentricities greater than the minimum observed eccentricity of comets (0.0279).
EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets


EC universe: solrey pointed out in this post that EC idea expects that the voltage potential a comet experiences would be orders of magnitude higher than that of the cloud to ground voltage potential in a thunderstorm (109 volts).
"Several" is more than a couple so the EC idea expects a voltage drop around a comet of at least 1012 volts.

Real universe: tusenfem pointed out that "Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet Halley" by Harri Laakso gave the measured potential drop between electrical layers around Comet Halley as 50 kV in this post. This is 10,000 times less than the thunderstorm potential and 10,000,000 times less that requires by the EC idea.

Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
EC universe: Comets are rocky bodies, comparable to asteroids and probably created in the same event as asteroids (according to Thunderbolts). Comet jets, coma and tails are created from material (e.g. water) that that is created from rock by electrical discharge machining. Like everything in the EC idea there are no numbers and so no prediction of the composition of the nucleus. We could say that means that the EC idea predicts no water (0%) but there should be some blowback from the physically impossible (on comets) EDM process.
Asteroids in general have very low amounts of water. So let's just throw in 1% water as an extremely generous guess - IMHO it should be something like 0.01%. Sol88 or solrey should provide a better number if they have it.

Real universe: Comets are bodies with a mixture of rock and ices of various compounds, e.g. CO and water. They are have been described as "dirty snowballs". The volatile material (ices) is heated by the Sun and sublimates to form jets, the coma and the tail.This is supported by actual physical evidence, i.e. the results of the Deep Impact mission where the impact ejected material from the nucleus that was composed of 20-50% water and 80-50% dust.


EC universe: Only give qualitative predictions.
Sol88 posted a list of EC "predictions" for Tempel 1 and Deep Impact. The closes it gets to an actual quantitative predictions is "The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact." (emphasis added).

What actually happened was a flash on or after impact followed by a bigger one from deeper in the nucleus (according to NASA).

Real universe: Scientific theories model the data mathematically and produce both qualitative and quantitative predictions.





Someone could start with the papers of Whipple
  1. Whipple, Fred L. (1950). "A Comet Model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke". Astrophys. J. 111: 375–394.
  2. Whipple, Fred L. (1951). "A Comet Model. II. Physical Relations for Comets and Meteors". Astrophys. J. 113: 464.
  3. Whipple, Fred L. (1955). "A Comet Model. III. The Zodiacal Light". Astrophys. J. 121: 750.
and then go ointo the 1000's of scientific papers and many textbooks about comets. Tim Thompson recommened Introduction to Comets by Brandt & Chapman (Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd edition).


EC universe: Turn yourself into a crackpot idea by not publishing papers in peer reviewed journals.
Real universe: Take the risk of being wrong and become part of the scientific process by publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, e.g. Fred L. Whipple.[/quote]
 
Comet ice formed in cold regions beyond the planet Neptune but the rocks, probably the bulk of any comet's mass, formed much closer to the Sun in regions hot enough to evaporate bricks.

:boggled:
 
Sol88 said:
Comet ice formed in cold regions beyond the planet Neptune but the rocks, probably the bulk of any comet's mass, formed much closer to the Sun in regions hot enough to evaporate bricks.

:boggled:
Click to expand...
Learn to read, Sol88.
The name of the mission may be a clue (but not to you): Stardust.
Comet ice formed in cold regions beyond the planet Neptune but the Dust, probably the bulk of any comet's mass, formed much closer to the Sun in hot regions.
:jaw-dropp
 
Umm.....no Dr. Don Brownlee, Stardust Principal Investigator said rock, not dust!

as I quoted!

Comet ice formed in cold regions beyond the planet Neptune but the rocks, probably the bulk of any comet's mass, formed much closer to the Sun in regions hot enough to evaporate bricks. The materials that we collected from comet Wild 2 do contain pre-solar "stardust" grains, identified on the basis of their unusual isotopic composition, but these grains are very, very rare.
Click to expand...

As I was right : ignorance and the inability to read from Realty Check .

Reality Check sounds like you need one mate!
 
and these ROCKS have the same composition as meteorites!

So how did they mix?? because
we now know that comets are really a mix of materials made by conditions of both "fire and ice".
Click to expand...

Solar wind pressure? Bipolar outflows?(EU) Gravity? (the universe's dominate force) or like the book advertisment site said, they were electricaly machined of the surface of planets and Moons

Comets, specifically, have nothing to do with an ancient nebular cloud of cold gas and dust that became gravitationally unstable and collapsed into the Solar System of today. Comets and their asteroid sisters are relative newcomers to the solar family and might have been blasted out of larger bodies by tremendously powerful electric discharges in the recent past. They are not "snowballs" or blobs of muddy slush, they are solid, rocky, cratered, electrically charged objects.
Click to expand...
LINK
 
Sol88 said:
???

Not what Michael Zolensky, Stardust curator and co-investigator at NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston said

That's electric!
Click to expand...


You are so silly!

Everything with you is electric this and electric that, and you just insert it wherever you want and then pretend that it is there in some press release, when in fact you just inserted it there.

here is the press release
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/status/060313.html

But I note that as usuall you do not have a citation for the early sun and the creation of the bipolar jets being electric. I wonder why?
 
Sol88 said:
and these ROCKS have the same composition as meteorites!

So how did they mix?? because

Solar wind pressure? Bipolar outflows?(EU) Gravity? (the universe's dominate force) or like the book advertisment site said, they were electricaly machined of the surface of planets and Moons

LINK
Click to expand...

Funny that Thunderdolts has no references to the passage you quote , now does it? It is just an unsupported assertion of a beleif without evidemce.

More silly on you.
 
Sol88 said:
Umm.....no Dr. Don Brownlee, Stardust Principal Investigator said rock, not dust!

as I quoted!



As I was right : ignorance and the inability to read from Realty Check .

Reality Check sounds like you need one mate!
Click to expand...


No the only thing lacking in your quote is any evidence that Dr. Brownless said anything that you pretend he did:
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news116.html

There is is, where is the silly stuff you say? Where is the electric part? Hmmmmm. Gosh you mean that the CAI were formed bewteen the orbit or Mars and Jupiter when the sun was young? You mean you directly contradict what Sol88 has to say, and that he misundetsood the context of the stuff he quotes. Shocker.

ETA: You missed this
in addition to the numerous jets of dust and gas escaping into space.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
No the only thing lacking in your quote is any evidence that Dr. Brownless said anything that you pretend he did:
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news116.html

There is is, where is the silly stuff you say? Where is the electric part? Hmmmmm. Gosh you mean that the CAI were formed bewteen the orbit or Mars and Jupiter when the sun was young? You mean you directly contradict what Sol88 has to say, and that he misundetsood the context of the stuff he quotes. Shocker.

ETA: You missed this
Click to expand...

Are you saying he did not say the bulk of a comets mass is rock?

Troll!

Search "rock" + "mass" + "bulk"

Appology accepted!

for those that carnt be arsed to search here is the quote again, from DD's link.

Comet ice formed in cold regions beyond the planet Neptune but the rocks, probably the bulk of any comet's mass, formed much closer to the Sun in regions hot enough to evaporate bricks.
Click to expand...

So how did the "volitiles" get in with the high temp "dust" where it is hot enough to melt brick?

Dancing David? RC?

Now according to you'se I'm pretty daft, but I'm interested in your informed decision anywhoo?
 
Sol88 said:
Are you saying he did not say the bulk of a comets mass is rock?

Troll!

Search "rock" + "mass" + "bulk"

Appology accepted!

for those that carnt be arsed to search here is the quote again, from DD's link.
Click to expand...
i stated very clearly that you conclusions about teh nature of comets are unsupported by what Dr. Brownless said.
So how did the "volitiles" get in with the high temp "dust" where it is hot enough to melt brick?
Click to expand...
Silly again, you can't understand that stuff can cool off. Okay.
Dancing David? RC?

Now according to you'se I'm pretty daft, but I'm interested in your informed decision anywhoo?
Click to expand...

I said silly, the things you say are silly, and unsupported, you quote one thing and say another.

If you read Dr. Bownlee's article he talks a lot about dust dust dust, no where does he say that comets are solid rock like asteroids.

You just pick little pieces and ignore the rest.
 
Dancing David said:
i stated very clearly that you conclusions about teh nature of comets are unsupported by what Dr. Brownless said.

Silly again, you can't understand that stuff can cool off. Okay.


I said silly, the things you say are silly, and unsupported, you quote one thing and say another.

If you read Dr. Bownlee's article he talks a lot about dust dust dust, no where does he say that comets are solid rock like asteroids.

You just pick little pieces and ignore the rest.
Click to expand...

The bulk of the comets mass is rock, re read it! Not dust, not ice but rock made with high temp minerals and crystals like those found in meteorites.

Like Brownlee said
Among the high temperature materials some are already well known components of primitive meteorites; rocks from asteroids that formed between Mars and Jupiter. These include odd rounded particles called chondrules and white irregular particles known as Calcium Aluminum Inclusions (CAIs). Chondrules are the dominant material in many primitive meteorites and they are rounded droplets of rocks that melted and then quickly cooled as they orbited the Sun. CAIs are much rarer than chondrules and are distinguished by their unusual chemical and isotopic composition. They are also the oldest solar system materials and are composed of exotic minerals that form at the very high temperature.
Click to expand...

Then ice mixed with it, by dark energy majik!! :rolleyes:
 
I love this makes me laugh every time

The stardust team (mainstream) said

Comets are small, cold, primordial bodies that formed at the edge of the solar system, near Pluto. They are made of material that is nearly unchanged since the Sun and planets formed 4.6 billion years ago. Comets are frozen bodies, far from the Sun, that have never been exposed to the environments similar to those on the early Earth that preceded and led to the emergence of life. Comets are among the most inhospitable places in the solar system for life.
Click to expand...

Comets are small, cold, primordial bodies that formed at the edge of the solar system, near Pluto, except they did'nt!
 
Sol88 said:
The bulk of the comets mass is rock, re read it! Not dust, not ice but rock made with high temp minerals and crystals like those found in meteorites.

Like Brownlee said

Then ice mixed with it, by dark energy majik!! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I did read it, I can't help your understanding of it.
What we found was remarkable! Instead of rocky materials that formed around previous generations of stars we found that most of the comet's rocky matter formed inside our solar system at extremely high temperature. In great contrast to its ice, our comet's rocky material had formed under white-hot conditions. Even though we confirmed Comets are ancient bodies with an abundance of ice, some of which formed a few tens of degrees above absolute zero at the edge of the solar system, we now know that comets are really a mix of materials made by conditions of both "fire and ice". Comet ice formed in cold regions beyond the planet Neptune but the rocks, probably the bulk of any comet's mass, formed much closer to the Sun in regions hot enough to evaporate bricks. The materials that we collected from comet Wild 2 do contain pre-solar "stardust" grains, identified on the basis of their unusual isotopic composition, but these grains are very, very rare.

Among the high temperature materials some are already well known components of primitive meteorites; rocks from asteroids that formed between Mars and Jupiter. These include odd rounded particles called chondrules and white irregular particles known as Calcium Aluminum Inclusions (CAIs). Chondrules are the dominant material in many primitive meteorites and they are rounded droplets of rocks that melted and then quickly cooled as they orbited the Sun. CAIs are much rarer than chondrules and are distinguished by their unusual chemical and isotopic composition. They are also the oldest solar system materials and are composed of exotic minerals that form at the very high temperature.
It was very exciting to find that pieces of CAIs and chondrules in the comet and the scientific implications of this are profound. When we first presented the discovery of comet CAIs at the annual Lunar and Planetary Science conference, just three months after Stardust landed, you could see jaws drop in the room crowded with 600 scientists. It was just phenomenal to discover something this profound, right in the beginning of the analysis program. The discovery of chondrules and CAIs proves that matter abundantly formed in the inner solar system was somehow transported to the edge of the young solar system where comets formed. There are some theories that suggest that CAI's formed just a few radii from the surface of the Sun, 4.567 billion years ago. The finding that inner solar system materials, formed at very high temperature, were transported all the way to the edge of the Solar System to the region where Pluto is one of the major scientific findings of Stardust. In other words, instead of being dominated by particles formed around other stars, our comet's rocks were predominantly formed close to the Sun. Thus, these comet sample studies have provided a direct look at the nature and origin of the building blocks of planets, materials that were sprayed all over the young solar system and must have been incorporated into all planets and moons.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom