• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Moved from Creation Evolution - Astronomy

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Cough.


tumblr_lhu1kwMDfx1qgpfu6.jpg

Yes, only a desperate man would grab at one possibility after 10 million tries of looking for it. Of course this particle they created from smashing two other particles together immediately decayed back into its constituent parts, but by god we found the Higgs. Just laughable, just outrageously hilarious! When I can get off the floor from laughing so hard we can discuss that stupid assumption.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Yes, only a desperate man would grab at one possibility after 10 million tries of looking for it.
The Standard Model predicted the Higgs Boson between X and Y GeV. They systematically searched between X and Y, and, towards the higher end of that range, found a new boson whose known properties conformed to the Higgs.

But never let a confirmed prediction stand in the way of faith.

Of course this particle they created from smashing two other particles together immediately decayed back into its constituent parts, but by god we found the Higgs. Just laughable, just outrageously hilarious! When I can get off the floor from laughing so hard we can discuss that stupid assumption.
No one said they found the Higgs. They found a new particle where the Model says the Higgs should be, and the known properties (bosonic species, decay chain, energy of ~126 GeV, spin zero, positive parity, etc) are those the Model says the Higgs should have.

But your a priori assumption that the Higgs cannot possible exist precludes you from admitting the possibility that your beliefs might be wrong.

The LHC could easily have found nothing - but it didn't.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The Standard Model predicted the Higgs Boson between X and Y GeV. They systematically searched between X and Y, and, towards the higher end of that range, found a new boson whose known properties conformed to the Higgs.

But never let a confirmed prediction stand in the way of faith.


No one said they found the Higgs. They found a new particle where the Model says the Higgs should be, and the known properties (bosonic species, decay chain, energy of ~126 GeV, spin zero, positive parity, etc) are those the Model says the Higgs should have.

But your a priori assumption that the Higgs cannot possible exist precludes you from admitting the possibility that your beliefs might be wrong.

The LHC could easily have found nothing - but it didn't.


No, they found the predicted decay rates where the Bosun would NOT be.

Supersymmetry Fails Test, Forcing Physics to Seek New Ideas: Scientific American

Who you trying to convince with a few misdirected statements? Yourself?

A very rare decay has been seen by CMS | CMS Experiment

Rare Particle Find Confirms Standard Model Theory, Disappoints Physicists - eNet View

Rare Particle Discovery Dims Hopes for Exotic Theories

But don't give up your faith yet, they are still attempting to take the electrical force out of the atom. Got a few more non-standard theories to look at yet, even though the standard one was just proved correct.

Faith is such a wonderful thing, allows one to hold onto hope even when all is lost.

The only problem with theory and the standard model is you want to use it to explain dark matter which doesn't exist in the first place, so there is no problem with it. The only problem is that it was confirmed which disproved dark matter, get rid of that Fairie Dust please.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I have a good basic understanding of science, and I am a Christian through and through, but something about Astronomy confuses me. In real basic terms, Astrophysicists state that there was a hugely condensed energy which became unstable. Forgetting how it became unstable or where this energy came from, it exploded outward creating the Universe. As the energy gradually cooled, some energy converted into matter, giving rise to sub atomic particles. Now the confusing part. We know there is plenty of room in the universe, it continues to speed up every minute with the expansion rate, but what caused these particles to slow down sufficiently to allow attraction? I think this was seen as a problem recently with sub atomic particles making up Atoms, because the sub atomic particles really want to shoot off in any direction at the speed of light. So a dampening effect was basically invented 'Higgs field'. This is made up of an invented particle 'boson'. It still has issues because the boson would need something like a mass of 10,000 tons per cubic centimetre but we can only show the weight of a proton. So something else will likely be invented soon. We have massive black holes in the centre of galaxies, which could account for affecting the sub atomic particles, allowing attraction, but what created them? I have emailed several Astrophysicists but none seem to give an answer. Doesn't it seem odd that particles making atoms are affected, but all the other sub atomic particles are not. They are still happily whizzing around at incredible speeds. So what determines if they are to be affected by this Higgs field?

All I ask is that for a couple of hours you put the View Master down, and look. If indeed you want real answers instead of Fairie Dust.

There was never expansion besides the movement we see within the local group of galaxies. They are not "expanding" apart - they are moving apart.

The first thing you must consider is that this initial state of matter (if we base our premise that the BB is true) was plasma. Plasma that in any single laboratory on earth we do not treat gravitationally, but electromagnetically. 2ndly, that this plasma state of matter still makes up 99% of the universe.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gravitational theories - they are fine for the states of matter to which they apply - solids, liquids and gasses - atoms of equal numbers of protons and electrons. They do fine in explaining that other 1% of the universe - the 1% of which planetary systems comprise.

A good place to start: Is here and here.

Then understanding their basic misconception which led them to an incorrect interpretation of redshift as expansion. Then understand that galaxies are electromagnetic events in plasma - and no infinite density point mass of zero volume sits in the middle that objects orbit around. Instead as experiments suggest - it is merely an electromagnetic center around which multiple objects rotate. Watching the entire video from the start will help, I linked to relevant portion under discussion.

But because cosmologists apply gravitational behavior to a universe 99% plasma, they of course require 95% ad-hoc assumptions to force fit theory for neutral matter to the wrong state of matter. Just as if one used plasma physics to describe the behavior of solids, liquids and neutral gasses - 95% ad-hoc assumptions would be required to make it fit.
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
78
England
✟264,026.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gravitational theories - they are fine for the states of matter to which they apply - solids, liquids and gasses - atoms of equal numbers of protons and electrons. They do fine in explaining that other 1% of the universe - the 1% of which planetary systems comprise.
Do you think that gravitational theories also explain the orbits of binary stars or the dynamics of star clusters?
 
Upvote 0

nuttypiglet

Newbie
Mar 23, 2012
639
2
✟23,299.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When earth formed 4.5 or so billion years ago, it was a molten rock in space and was still being continually bombarded. Then it cooled enough for a crust to form. Where did the water come from? Our planet has tons of it and here it is. Is the theory regarding the earth being bombarded by icy meteors the only explanation? I mean, if it is, that is more laughable than the flood.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟244,477.00
Faith
Seeker
When earth formed 4.5 or so billion years ago, it was a molten rock in space and was still being continually bombarded. Then it cooled enough for a crust to form. Where did the water come from? Our planet has tons of it and here it is. Is the theory regarding the earth being bombarded by icy meteors the only explanation? I mean, if it is, that is more laughable than the flood.

Water is one of the most abundant elements in the universe. What's so laughable about a lot of it being in a certain place?
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Do you think that gravitational theories also explain the orbits of binary stars or the dynamics of star clusters?


Well first you got to get what they are correct.

"The formation of globular clusters remains a poorly understood phenomenon and it remains uncertain whether the stars in a globular cluster form in a single generation or are spawned across multiple generations over a period of several hundred million years. In many globular clusters, most of the stars are at approximately the same stage in stellar evolution, suggesting that they formed at about the same time. However, the star formation history varies from cluster to cluster, with some clusters showing distinct populations of stars"

They haven't a clue as to star formation, because they do not yet understand stars. Stars have moved across the HR diagram in a matter of months - when their lifespan is supposed to be measured in millions of years.

http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

""We don't often see stars change their spectral types in a human lifetime. Thus, FG Sagittae, which brightened, cooled from about BO to K, and added lines of carbon, barium, and other elements to its spectrum in the century after 1890 was long seemingly unique. The standard interpretation has been that it experienced its very last flash of helium shell burning (the products are carbon and oxygen) and was about to become an R Coronea Borealis variable. These are carbon-rich stars that fade suddenly and unpredictably (which FG Sge started doing a couple of years ago) and that have hydrogen-depleted atmospheres (which FG Sge has just developed). In addition, the "galloping giant" is no longer alone. Examination of old images and spectrograms reveal that V 605 Aquilae, studied by Knut Lundmark in the 1920's was a similar sort of beast, though it is now very faint And the latest recruit is V 4334 Sagittarii, better known as Sakurai's object, for its 1994 discoverer. It, too, changed both spectral type and surface composition very rapidly, and is now hydrogen-poor and carbon-rich, and well on its way to becoming the century's third new R CrB star."

""V838 Mon was discovered to be in outburst in January of this year. Initially thought to be a familiar type of classical nova, astronomers quickly realized that instead, V838 Mon may be a totally new addition to the astronomical zoo. Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of months from a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly-luminous, cool supergiant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes. The transformation defies the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles. A most notable feature of V838 Mon is the "expanding" nebula which now appears to surround it." [Ital and emphasis added.]"

But if you are willing to face up to the fact that none of their observations match theory there is room for discussion. Including the discovered binary after each fissioning process.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
When earth formed 4.5 or so billion years ago, it was a molten rock in space and was still being continually bombarded. Then it cooled enough for a crust to form. Where did the water come from? Our planet has tons of it and here it is. Is the theory regarding the earth being bombarded by icy meteors the only explanation? I mean, if it is, that is more laughable than the flood.

The water got here the same way all water gets everywhere.

http://www.space.com/27377-moon-water-origin-solar-wind.html

Earth's water from comets has already been falsified.

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news008.html
"A new Caltech study of comet Hale-Bopp suggests that comets did not give Earth its water, buttressing other recent studies but contrary to the longstanding belief of many planetary scientists."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/10/water-comet-67p-earth-rosetta
"The discovery seems to overturn the theory that Earth got its water, and so its ability to harbour life, from water-bearing comets that slammed into the planet during its early history."

But planetary scientists have problems giving up Fairie Dust as well, it is not confined to cosmologists.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The water got here the same way all water gets everywhere.

http://www.space.com/27377-moon-water-origin-solar-wind.html

Earth's water from comets has already been falsified.

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news008.html
"A new Caltech study of comet Hale-Bopp suggests that comets did not give Earth its water, buttressing other recent studies but contrary to the longstanding belief of many planetary scientists."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/10/water-comet-67p-earth-rosetta
"The discovery seems to overturn the theory that Earth got its water, and so its ability to harbour life, from water-bearing comets that slammed into the planet during its early history."

But planetary scientists have problems giving up Fairie Dust as well, it is not confined to cosmologists.
Actually you did not quite understand that article. It means that comets were not the main source of water for the Earth. They could still have been a minor contributor. They are fairly sure now that the Earth had its water from the start. Carbonacious chondirtes have a measurable amount of water. It would take only a very low percentage of water in those meteors to supply our water when the Earth formed. You can read more here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141030-starstruck-earth-water-origin-vesta-science/
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Actually you did not quite understand that article. It means that comets were not the main source of water for the Earth. They could still have been a minor contributor. They are fairly sure now that the Earth had its water from the start. Carbonacious chondirtes have a measurable amount of water. It would take only a very low percentage of water in those meteors to supply our water when the Earth formed. You can read more here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141030-starstruck-earth-water-origin-vesta-science/

Only when we ignore all the data we have on comets.


When we ignore that only the rarest patch of frost has been seen on any comet - that the claimed H20 is not H20 but HO - hydrogen radicals - which are created as per laboratory experiments from the bombardment of negative silicates with protons.

They have never contributed anything except for what they possess in the coma itself where the water is created. Why you still refuse to accept the science in Favor of Fairie Dust that is "always hidden" is beyond me. I guess that's so you can make any claim you want and then use the "hidden" routine to cover up the fact you have no data at all to back your claim.

All comet surfaces are "hot and dry"

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2002/release_2002_80.html

"The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice,"

Not surprising at all - they have never seen any but rare patches of condensed frost from the halo that has settled onto the surface. Give up the Fairie Dust and let those claimed ice balls die a respectable death - instead of trying to make Zombies out of them.

You and they have no recent data to back any of your claims. Which is of course why you ignore the results of Stardust - which proved to you comets were composed of the same material as planets formed in the habital zone of a fully formed sun.

EDIT:
That water formed earlier than you believe because the magnetosphere had not yet formed - allowing the bombardment of the earth by high energy protons - creating the water you now observe - and is even still doing so.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/ast09dec97_3/

"The acceleration mechanism is not fully understood, though."

Of course it isn't to astronomers, even if in particle accelerators we understand quite well what the mechanism is.

Because you continually ignore what occurs in space and it's electrical environment.

"It turns out that all spacecraft develop an electrical charge. For high altitude satellites, exposure to sunlight and the passage through plasmas give a satellite a charge of about 5 to 10 eV. A small cloud of ions, a plasma sheath, builds around the spacecraft and repels anything with lower energy."

Stop with the Fairie Dust already and just start accepting the data. Come over to real science instead of Fairie Dust!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Only when we ignore all the data we have on comets.


When we ignore that only the rarest patch of frost has been seen on any comet - that the claimed H20 is not H20 but HO - hydrogen radicals - which are created as per laboratory experiments from the bombardment of negative silicates with protons.

They have never contributed anything except for what they possess in the coma itself where the water is created. Why you still refuse to accept the science in Favor of Fairie Dust that is "always hidden" is beyond me. I guess that's so you can make any claim you want and then use the "hidden" routine to cover up the fact you have no data at all to back your claim.

All comet surfaces are "hot and dry"

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2002/release_2002_80.html

"The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice,"

Oh my, still going on with conspiracy theories. From the same article:

"Comet Borrelly has plenty of ice beneath its tar-black surface, but any exposed to sunlight has vaporized away, say scientists analyzing data from Deep Space 1, managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif."

They can identify the makeup of comet tails. Are you going to say that the tails of comets are not largely water?

Not surprising at all - they have never seen any but rare patches of condensed frost from the halo that has settled onto the surface. Give up the Fairie Dust and let those claimed ice balls die a respectable death - instead of trying to make Zombies out of them.

Do you mean the tail? You are the one with the Fairy Dust beliefs. We all know that. Comets are still largely water, why do you think they break up as they approach the Sun?

You and they have no recent data to back any of your claims. Which is of course why you ignore the results of Stardust - which proved to you comets were composed of the same material as planets formed in the habital zone of a fully formed sun.

What are you talking about? The article I linked based their claims on a recent discovery. I see that you either did not read it or did not understand it.

EDIT:
That water formed earlier than you believe because the magnetosphere had not yet formed - allowing the bombardment of the earth by high energy protons - creating the water you now observe - and is even still doing so.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/ast09dec97_3/

"The acceleration mechanism is not fully understood, though."

Of course it isn't to astronomers, even if in particle accelerators we understand quite well what the mechanism is.

Because you continually ignore what occurs in space and it's electrical environment.

"It turns out that all spacecraft develop an electrical charge. For high altitude satellites, exposure to sunlight and the passage through plasmas give a satellite a charge of about 5 to 10 eV. A small cloud of ions, a plasma sheath, builds around the spacecraft and repels anything with lower energy."

Stop with the Fairie Dust already and just start accepting the data. Come over to real science instead of Fairie Dust!

And you once again have to slip your belief in Fairy Dust into a post. You have made several claims, you need to show that have any supporting evidence for them. You think that your plasma is fairy dust, as we all know. You need to show that the flux rate of your fairy dust was high enough to make the oceans. And that is just a beginning.

There is a reason that no one takes you seriously. Can you guess what it is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
78
England
✟264,026.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
When earth formed 4.5 or so billion years ago, it was a molten rock in space and was still being continually bombarded. Then it cooled enough for a crust to form. Where did the water come from? Our planet has tons of it and here it is. Is the theory regarding the earth being bombarded by icy meteors the only explanation? I mean, if it is, that is more laughable than the flood.
Where did the water come from?

At present there is not a definitive answer, but there is some evidence that appears to indicate that the Earth's water came from a class of meteorites called carbonaceous chondrites.

You could look at the link http://www.asu.edu/clas/hst/classes/ast494+591/2009-12-04/mechtley091204.pdf . The author concludes that:
(1) The earth accreted water throughout its history.
(2) Initial dose of water from asteroids via gas drag.
(3) Most water comes from distant-formed planetary embryos near the end of formation.
(4) Around ~10% is delivered by comets, in a late veneer phase, the only high D/H water.

I am not sure whether the authors of the 'National Geographic' article cited by Subduction Zone are saying that the Earth was formed relatively cold with water on its surface, but these new results appear to imply that it was not a 'molten ball', at least not for very long. We already have radiometric dates of 4.4 billion years for Australian zircons, so the Earth must have had a solid surface at least by that time.

I'm sorry that I can't give a complete answer to your question. No doubt there will be more research on this question, and scientific understanding will change, but it looks as if there are natural processes that could have supplied the Earth with its water. That's the best I can do at present.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
At present there is not a definitive answer, but there is some evidence that appears to indicate that the Earth's water came from a class of meteorites called carbonaceous chondrites.

You could look at the link http://www.asu.edu/clas/hst/classes/ast494+591/2009-12-04/mechtley091204.pdf . The author concludes that:
(1) The earth accreted water throughout its history.
(2) Initial dose of water from asteroids via gas drag.
(3) Most water comes from distant-formed planetary embryos near the end of formation.
(4) Around ~10% is delivered by comets, in a late veneer phase, the only high D/H water.

I am not sure whether the authors of the 'National Geographic' article cited by Subduction Zone are saying that the Earth was formed relatively cold with water on its surface, but these new results appear to imply that it was not a 'molten ball', at least not for very long. We already have radiometric dates of 4.4 billion years for Australian zircons, so the Earth must have had a solid surface at least by that time.

I'm sorry that I can't give a complete answer to your question. No doubt there will be more research on this question, and scientific understanding will change, but it looks as if there are natural processes that could have supplied the Earth with its water. That's the best I can do at present.

Agreed - meteorites get the water the same way the moon and comets do.

http://www.space.com/27377-moon-water-origin-solar-wind.html

The only body in space actually tested for this process.

Because those asteroids are no different than the comets - just on elliptical orbits from negative space to positive space where they begin discharging. As shown by asteroids now and then as the space around them changes due to fluctuations in the solar wind.

http://news.discovery.com/space/ast...d-has-identity-crisis-grows-a-tail-141111.htm

"In recent years, however, this idea has been turned on its head with the discovery of well known asteroids, which appear to be happily orbiting in the solar system’s Main Belt — a population of rocky bodies sandwiched between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter — that inextricably start looking like comets."

"But until more are found, the mechanisms behind these asteroid-comet hybrids will likely remain a mystery for some time to come."

And those mechanisms will remain a mystery for some time to come - until we admit to those electrical interactions. Then it's not a mystery at all.

 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
78
England
✟264,026.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
Because those asteroids are no different than the comets - just on elliptical orbits from negative space to positive space where they begin discharging. As shown by asteroids now and then as the space around them changes due to fluctuations in the solar wind.

No. If you look at the link I gave you
you will see that comets (which come from the outer solar system) and carbonaceous chondrites (which come from the asteroid belt) have different D/H ratios.

Specifically, the Earth's D/H ratio is (149±3)×10^-6; carbonaceous chondrites have D/H = (128-180)×10-6; comets have D/H = (309±20)×10^-6. (The solar wind has D/H = (25±5)×10^-6, much lower than the Earth's D/H ratio.)

This implies that asteroids and comets had different origins. Also the Earth is more likely to have obtained its water from the asteroid belt than from the comets of the Kuiper belt or the Oort cloud.
 
Upvote 0

029b10

It is a hinnie talking to the Spirit not a mule.
Aug 24, 2015
190
15
✟23,012.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
As the energy gradually cooled, some energy converted into matter, giving rise to sub atomic particles. Now the confusing part.

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed then how could energy change into matter?
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
No. If you look at the link I gave you
you will see that comets (which come from the outer solar system) and carbonaceous chondrites (which come from the asteroid belt) have different D/H ratios.

Specifically, the Earth's D/H ratio is (149±3)×10^-6; carbonaceous chondrites have D/H = (128-180)×10-6; comets have D/H = (309±20)×10^-6. (The solar wind has D/H = (25±5)×10^-6, much lower than the Earth's D/H ratio.)

This implies that asteroids and comets had different origins. Also the Earth is more likely to have obtained its water from the asteroid belt than from the comets of the Kuiper belt or the Oort cloud.

Really? What else would you expect but different D/H ratios since each occupies a different area of the Suns magnetosphere?


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969ApJ...155..587R

No, it implies that asteroids and comets occupy different areas of space and receive different levels of cosmic ray bombardment.

Being comets are further from the sun, we expect them to receive more cosmic rays not diverted by the solar magnetosphere as they are further in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays

"Except for the very highest energy galactic cosmic rays, the radius of gyration in the Earth's magnetic field is small enough to ensure that they are deflected away from Earth."

To then think the suns magnetosphere as it intensifies closer to the sun would not block more is well.... Fairie Dust.

http://hep.fi.infn.it/PAMELA/tesi/pdf/tesi_elenaphd.pdf

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00642551

But since every theoretical model mainstream has of the heliosphere was falsified - along with their cosmic ray models - we can discount any claims by mainstream theorists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere

""The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

Any mainstream models of course.

But I am sure you will now attempt to use those same falsified models to defend mainstream Fairie Dust.

Cosmic rays were 200% higher than today just a few centuries ago.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/ray_surge.html

"Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% higher than they are now."

Cosmic rays models falsified as they come in a preferential direction - not randomly in the sky as once believed.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3103/S0027134907050116

http://www.wired.com/2013/06/voyager-unexpected-region/
"So what’s the problem? Well, if the solar wind was completely gone, galactic cosmic rays should be streaming in from all directions. Instead, Voyager found them coming preferentially from one direction."

So every excuse you are going to give me for ignoring the one and only observation of water production has already been falsified. And falsified models can not be used to support Fairie Dust.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
And you better go reread the Stardust data - the material brought back matches exactly bodies formed in the habital zone of a fully developed sun - and can only have been formed there. See compositional zoning 8:58 on since you probably cant be bothered to watch the entire thing and learn.

Please, watch and learn - none of the comet observations have supported mainstream Fairie Dust.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
They are using *High Energy Physics* in an attempt to find an electrically neutral particle, what can one expect? After 100 years of complete and abject failure they still can not take the electrical force out of the atom.

Yet more bovine exacrement from one of its chief producers?

I would much prefer it if they didn't "take the electrical force out of the atom" if you don't mind. I don't want my atoms to go flying apart, and I doubt if there is any mad scientist who wants that to happen either. (Of course, anybody who entertained the idea that it was even possible could hardly be called a scientist.)
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Yet more bovine exacrement from one of its chief producers?

I would much prefer it if they didn't "take the electrical force out of the atom" if you don't mind. I don't want my atoms to go flying apart, and I doubt if there is any mad scientist who wants that to happen either. (Of course, anybody who entertained the idea that it was even possible could hardly be called a scientist.)

Of course they are mad proposing particles that do not react electromagnetically. of course now they want dark matter to be a particle that reacts barely because their mad scientists claims all fell out the window. We agree those that propose Dark Matter are not scientists.

So then why are you attempting to sledgehammer gravitational theory to a universe you know is 99% plasma, considering no physics but Plasma Physics is used to describe plasma behavior in any single laboratory anywhere????????

You got nothing but Fairie Dust in your world because you refuse to apply the proper physics to the proper states of matter. You might as well start applying gas physics to water and then add that 96% Fairie Dust because you used the wrong physics, because that's exactly what you are doing.

We both know this, this is why you will respond with nothing but ad-hominem attacks because your theories require you to ignore what 99% of the universe is and treat it like that other 1%. And you got the nerve to even mention the word science.....
 
Upvote 0