Not to belabor whatever side-track you are off on here, but where do you think this water comes from?
Had you watched the video, you would know exactly where this water comes from. How do you think ANY water is formed?????? Just why do you think we do not just make water ourselves to solve the fresh water supply problem if combining those hydrogen and oxygen molecules is simply a matter of putting them together?
HowStuffWorks "Why can\'t we manufacture water?"
"To create water, oxygen and hydrogen atoms must be present. Mixing them together doesn't help; you're still left with just separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The orbits of each atom's electrons must become linked, and to do that we must have a sudden burst of energy to get these shy things to hook up."
Because atomic processes of chemical bonding are electrostatic interactions.
Water and its structure
"As we all learned in school, opposite charges attract, so the partially-positive hydrogen atom on one water molecule is electrostatically attracted to the partially-negative oxygen on a neighboring molecule. This process is called (somewhat misleadingly)
hydrogen bonding."
Well, as some of us learned in school at least.
Hydrogen bonding in water
"Typically hydrogen bonding occurs where the partially positively charged hydrogen atom lies between partially negatively charged oxygen and/or nitrogen atoms...
...the hydrogen atom is covalently attached to the oxygen of a water molecule (492.2148 kJ mol-1) but has (optimally) an additional attraction (about 23.3 kJ mol-1)"
Joule per mole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The
joule per mole (symbol: J·mol−1) is an
SI derived unit of energy per amount of material. Energy is measured in
joules, and the amount of material is measured in
moles."
So understand what is being said when they talk about hydrogen bonding.
You seem to have this bizarre requirement that something be perfectly 100% one way or the other. I'm merely pointing out that comets do appear to carry some sort of water or at least possibly some hydrous material. Not every comet necessarily, and not every place on the comet.
Virtually no water present at all. The water is created by energetic interactions in the coma, those same energetic interactions required to make all hydrogen bonds. This is why comets output in x-rays, surprising every single astronomer.
The bigger picture is your question of where does water on earth come from.
The same way it is made on comets. The same thing causing those craters on the moon to contains frost from the ion beams creating it.
NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind
The same way it's done on earth.
Earth weaves its own invisible cloak - Polar fountains fill magnetosphere with ions - NASA Science
You, for some reason, have decided that a couple of references that failed to find water on some cometary bodies and questions over whether earth received all of its water form comets, means that the development of water on earth is somehow some HUGE mystery that (I imagine) you can only conceive of solving through the use of cosmic electrolysis or some such!
No I have not. I have decided based it on ALL of the references that failed to find water on EVERY single comet, except as observed in the coma and as shallow patches of frost. You are basing belief because we see (cathode ray) your jets (which no water is observed in if you read the scientific papers, and then 15 hours later they talk of increased water being detected in the coma. But because the ignore the electrical processes they then "assume" the water came from the jets.
Yet EVERY single comet that has shattered the spectrograph showed not one tiny little bit of water besides what already existed in the coma.
None, zero, zip.
[quate]As noted earlier: water EXISTS in space. H2O molecules are a real THING in the universe. The water on earth could have been introduced by comets or other "bolides" hammering into it, OR it could have simply accumulated during the accretionary phase, but both ideas have their problems.
But you are claiming the exact opposite for why comets have only tiny fractions of water on their surface.
Or it could have occurred during an early period of intense electrical activity. The same electrical activity you want to have been present to create life.
We know that at least the hydrous phases on the Moon share similar isotopic make-up to the liquid water on earth indicating that the water content on earth was largely set prior to the formation of the moon.
Why would water be different on any planet? H2O is H2O whether it be on the moon, comet, plaent. Also the same because it is that same energetic process that creates those cathode rays everywhere. Electrical energy and hydrogen bonds.
But really, I think you are making some big mountain out of a mole hill! I don't think anyone (except you) is completely closed to a variety of different hypotheses for water on earth. The two normal pathways may not be perfect but does it mean they can't be real?
Yet the only way to make water ices in space without an atmosphere would be through electrostatic principles. The principles of hydrogen bonding.
I haven't done so. I'm open to comets containing other things. I'm just pointing out that the DO appear to often times contain WATER.
I am just pointing out that they don't appear to contain any. That what we have detected is in the coma, where energetic processes are occurring creating x-rays. X-rays not one single astronomer predicted they would find based on ice ball models.
EVERY SINGLE ONE???? Where did you get that! I pointed out the positive presence of water on a few comets. I said NOTHING about all comets all the time everywhere.
Shallow patches of "frost" that drifted to the surface "after" being created in those energetic processes that create the x-rays.
You are building a strawman here.
No, I am taking apart "mainstream's" strawman. There's a difference.
You mean, the data that shows the presence of water in some comets?
No, you mean the data that shows the presence of small patches of frost "on" comets, and water in the coma.
And I know you ain't gonna claim that for asteroids are you???
Nasa monitors unusually bright asteroid Scheila weeks after 11,000mph impact | Mail Online
"But none of the emissions most commonly identified in comets, such as hydroxyl or cyanogen, show up in the UVOT spectrum. The absence of gas around Scheila led the Swift team to reject scenarios where exposed ice accounted for the activity."
So since you agree it could be any number of processes, then Actually Watch the video, then ask any questions you may have. I just ask you understand all sides before choosing one, and I think you seriously don't understand the EU perspective. Don't take the words of others, hear what they say directly from them, then you are welcome to decide, but base that decision on ALL the evidence, not picking and choosing what you want it to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34wtt2EUToo
