Running Hot and Cold Extraterrestrial Water

One of the stranger mainstream obsessions is that the water found on Earth is of an extraterrestrial origin and this extraterrestrial water was brought to Earth by comets, asteroids and meteors.

Water that was brought here by comets and asteroids condensed into clouds and the oceans took shape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_the_Earth

This strange obsession with cometary extraterrestrial water is difficult to understand given the wealth of modern contradictory information:

1986: Probes fail to locate surface water on Halley’s comet.
1994: No volatile gases were observed when comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 broke apart.
2000: The debris of the disintegrated Comet Linear revealed virtually no water.
2001: Flyby of Comet Borrelly detected no frozen water on its surface.
2004: Flyby of Comet Wild 2 did not find a trace of water on the surface.
2005: Deep Impact on comet 9P/Tempel only showed “weak emission from water vapour”.

Evidently, the mainstream still runs hot over cometary extraterrestrial water long after Deep Impact falsified their “dirty snowball” cometary theory.

Strangely, the mainstream seems to run cold whenever planetary outgassing is mentioned as a source of planetary water:

There are only two significant sources for ice on Mercury: meteorite bombardment and planetary outgassing.

Meteorites, especially in the past, potentially carried large amounts of water to Mercury’s surface.

Outgassing of water from the planet’s interior could also provide a non-negligible flux of water to the surface, although this is speculative.

Ice on Mercury
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_mercury.html

Planet Mercury

Planet Mercury

Even more strangely, the concept of planetary outgassing has been completely frozen out of the mainstream explanations of water on the Moon. The mainstream obsession with cometary extraterrestrial water still remains but is now augmented by a new theory of the solar wind reacting with oxygen-rich lunar rocks.

However since the 1960s, scientists have hypothesized that water ice may be deposited by impacting comets or possibly produced by the reaction of oxygen-rich lunar rocks, and hydrogen from solar wind, leaving traces of water which could possibly survive in cold, permanently shadowed craters at either pole on the Moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

Water may have been delivered to the Moon over geological timescales by the regular bombardment of water-bearing comets, asteroids and meteoroids or continuously produced in situ by the hydrogen ions (protons) of the solar wind impacting oxygen-bearing minerals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water

The story of the 2009 NASA Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) mission just seems to highlight just how weird the mainstream has become when it comes to planetary water.

Initially, everything look quite straightforward with the LCROSS mission.

LCROSS was designed to collect and relay data from the impact and debris plume resulting from the launch vehicle’s spent Centaur upper stage (and data collecting Shepherding Spacecraft) striking the crater Cabeus near the south pole of the Moon.

Centaur had nominal impact mass of 2,305 kg (5,081 lb), and an impact velocity of about 10,000 km/h (6,200 mph), releasing the kinetic energy equivalent of detonating approximately 2 tons of TNT (8.86 GJ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCROSS

Now the weirdness begins.
LCROSS malfunctions on August 22nd and depletes half of its fuel.

LCROSS suffered a malfunction on August 22, depleting half of its fuel and leaving very little fuel margin in the spacecraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCROSS

LCROSS apparently impacts the Moon on October 9th but nobody sees the 350 ton debris plume that was predicted to remain below an altitude of 10 kilometres.

The Centaur impact was expected to excavate more than 350 metric tons (390 short tons) of lunar material and create a crater about 20 m (65 ft) in diameter to a depth of about 4 m (13 ft).

The Shepherding Spacecraft impact was projected to excavate an estimated 150 metric tons (170 short tons) and create a crater 14 m (46 ft) in diameter to a depth of about 2 m (6 ft).

Most of the material in the Centaur debris plume was expected to remain at (lunar) altitudes below 10 km (6 mi).

It was hoped that spectral analysis of the resulting impact plume would help to confirm preliminary findings by the Clementine and Lunar Prospector missions which hinted that there may be water ice in the permanently shadowed regions.

Mission scientists expected that the Centaur impact plume would be visible through amateur-class telescopes with apertures as small as 25 to 30 cm (10 to 12 inches).

But no plume was observed by such amateur telescopes.

Even world class telescopes such as the Hale telescope, equipped with adaptive optics, did not detect the plume.

The plume may have still occurred but at a small scale not detectable from earth. Both impacts were also monitored by Earth-based observatories and by orbital assets, such as the Hubble Space Telescope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCROSS

Miraculously, NASA managed to see a “small white speck that scientists think is the debris” from LCROSS.

LCROSS Centaur impact images reveal a small white speck

LCROSS Centaur impact images reveal a small white speck

When the rocket crashed into the moon, though, cameras on LCROSS registered no discernable change in the crater—at least to the untrained eye.

“It was hard to tell what we saw there,” said Michael Bicay, science director at NASA Ames Research Center in California, during live coverage on NASA TV.

A closer inspection of LCROSS impact images, though, has revealed a small white speck that scientists think is the debris thrown up by the first crash, but it will take time for scientists to determine whether it is evidence of water on the moon, NASA says.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091009-nasa-moon-bombing-lcross-impact-crash.html

Then over a month later [on November 13th] NASA gleefully announce they have found buckets of water on the moon.

The LCROSS team announced today the mission successfully uncovered water during the Oct. 9, 2009 impacts into the permanently shadowed region of Cabeus cater near the moon’s south pole.

“Indeed yes, we found water.
We didn’t find just a little bit we found a significant amount,” said Tony Colaprete, principal investigator for LCROSS at a press conference.

The team was not able to put a concentration of how much water is held in the lunar regolith, but in a fraction of the 20-30 meter crater the impact made, they were able to observe about 25 gallons (95 liters) of water with spectroscopic data. Colaprete held up a 2-gallon (7 liter) bucket, to demonstrate how much they found.

http://www.universetoday.com/44943/lcross-confirms-bucketsof-water-on-the-moon/

However, a more critical reviewer of the NASA results may wonder if they wishfully identified water whilst their spectrographic analysis actually revealed hydroxyl.

“We were only able to match the spectra from LCROSS data when we inserted the spectra for water,” said Colaprete. “No other reasonable combination of other compounds that we tried matched the observations. The possibility of contamination from the Centaur also was ruled out.”

Additional confirmation came from an emission in the ultraviolet spectrum that was attributed to hydroxyl, one product from the break-up of water by sunlight.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/prelim_water_results.html

Needless to say the mainstream weirdness continues to this day when it comes to planetary water.

On the 29th Novemeber 2012 NASA reluctantly revealed new observations indicate that Mercury harbours “abundant water ice and other frozen volatile materials in its permanently shadowed polar craters.”

New observations by the MESSENGER spacecraft provide compelling support for the long-held hypothesis that Mercury harbors abundant water ice and other frozen volatile materials in its permanently shadowed polar craters.

Three independent lines of evidence support this conclusion:

the first measurements of excess hydrogen at Mercury’s north pole with MESSENGER’s Neutron Spectrometer,

the first measurements of the reflectance of Mercury’s polar deposits at near-infrared wavelengths with the Mercury Laser Altimeter (MLA), and

the first detailed models of the surface and near-surface temperatures of
Mercury’s north polar regions that utilize the actual topography of Mercury’s
surface measured by the MLA.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/text/messenger_pr_20121129.txt

Unsurprisingly, NASA prefers to interpret “excess hydrogen” to mean water rather than any other alternatives such as planetary outgassing of hydrogen or even the really horrifying thought that a planet might outgas hydro-carbons [which Immanuel Velikovsky predicted for Venus].

Interestingly, a 30th November 2012 by the BBC article indicates that the “vast amounts of hydrogen” are covered “with a layer of dark material tens of centimetres thick” which they think is an “organic-rich material”.

Messenger Image

Messenger Image

Scientists have finally shown what has been postulated for decades: the planet Mercury holds billions of tonnes of water ice at its north pole.

This dip in the neutron count showed vast amounts of hydrogen in specific places at the planet’s pole, consistent with deposits of water.

But further measurements using a laser and looking for reflections showed that much of the ice is covered with a layer of dark material tens of centimetres thick.

Mercury’s water ice at north pole finally proven
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20553879

Evidently, neither NASA nor the BBC want anyone to think this “dark” and “organic-rich” hydrogen material could be outgassing hydrocarbons because they immediately invoke their hot obsession: cometary extraterrestrial water.

“The guess is that both the water and the dark material, which we think is organic-rich material, were delivered by the same objects impacting Mercury: some mixture of comets and the kinds of asteroids that are rich in organic and volatile material like water ice,” Prof Solomon said.

Mercury’s water ice at north pole finally proven
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20553879

According to Paige, the dark material is likely a mix of complex organic compounds delivered to Mercury by the impacts of comets and volatile-rich asteroids, the same objects that likely delivered water to the innermost planet

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/text/messenger_pr_20121129.txt

Messenger has found hollowed out surface features that indicate the loss of volatile material

Messenger has found hollowed out surface features that indicate the loss of volatile material

The way the discovery of water is significantly downplayed in a follow-up article by the BBC on the 16th February 2013 is very suggestive that the “excess hydrogen” may be something far more embarrassing [for the mainstream] than just frozen “water”.

“It’s got polar ice caps. Who’d have thought that?” said Dr Blewett.

“Well, Mercury’s surface isn’t made of ice – it’s scorching hot next to the Sun. But it seems that there is some sort of sublimation-like loss in the solid, silicate rocks that is causing these hollows to initiate and enlarge.

“It may be that a combination of high temperatures and what’s called severe space weathering destroys sulphide minerals in the rocks, causing them to crumble and open up a depression.”

Mercury shows off its colourful side
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21468172

Miles Mathis eloquently expresses his frustration regarding Dr Blewett’s statements:

Yes, but what about the ICE?
We know the main surface isn’t made of ice.
It is the poles we are talking about.
How the hollows formed isn’t the point.
How did the ice form, Dr. Blewett?

Dr. Blewett. Ironic, isn’t it?

Icecaps on Mercury more Proof of my Charge Field
Miles Mathis
http://milesmathis.com/mercice.pdf

If we are felling extremely charitable and accept the mainstream assertions of frozen water on both Mercury and the Moon then the mainstream still has a significant problem with their narrative because it asserts these planets are 4.5 billion years old.

Now the problem with ice is that it sublimates away in the atmosphere [or directly into space when there is no atmosphere].

Sublimation
Sublimation is the process of transformation directly from the solid phase to the gaseous phase without passing through an intermediate liquid phase. Sublimation is an endothermic phase transition that occurs at temperatures and pressures below a substance’s triple point in its phase diagram.

… … … ….

Snow and ice sublime, although more slowly, below the melting point temperature. This allows a wet cloth to be hung outdoors in freezing weather and retrieved later in a dry state.

In freeze-drying, the material to be dehydrated is frozen and its water is allowed to sublime under reduced pressure or vacuum. The loss of snow from a snowfield during a cold spell is often caused by sunshine acting directly on the upper layers of the snow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28phase_transition%29

The mainstream claim a sublimation rate of less than 1 centimetre per billion years for ice based upon a model developed in 1961.

For Mercury and the Moon, temperatures in shadows in polar craters are below 102 K, so the sublimation rate of water ice calculated according to the model of Watson et al. (J. Geophys. Res. 66, 3033-3015 (1961)) is less than 1 cm per byr.

Stability of polar frosts in spherical bowl-shaped craters on the Moon, Mercury, and Mars
Ingersoll, Andrew P. and Svitek, Tomas and Murray, Bruce C. (1992)
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/35838/

Unfortunately for the mainstream more recent studies show that their billion of year estimates are extremely suspect [especially regarding Mercury with it’s estimated 100 degrees Kelvin minimum temperature] for any planetary surface that rises much above 40 degrees Kelvin.

sublimation rate for a planar surface of pure ice

sublimation rate for a planar surface of pure ice

sublimation rates by temperature

sublimation rates by temperature

Retaining lunar ice samples near their original temperature of 40 K, on the other hand, would preserve the ice against sublimation for many millennia.

New estimates for the sublimation rate for ice on the Moon
Edgar L Andreas
http://www.nwra.com/resumes/andreas/publications/Icarus_Moon.pdf

No doubt the sublimation issue underlines the mainstream obsession with cometary extraterrestrial water.

Unfortunately, for the mainstream:
1. Comets are evidently rocky – not dirty snowballs.
2. Planetary ice has a nasty habit of sublimating.
3. Their 4.5 billion year timeline is looking increasingly delusional.
4. Immanuel Velikovsky gains more traction with each passing year.

Worlds in Collision

Worlds in Collision

The Hydridic Earth by Vladimir N. Larin.

The Hydridic Earth by Vladimir N. Larin.

Hydridic Earth: the New Geology of Our Primordially Hydrogen-rich Planet
by Vladimir N. Larin, C. Warren Hunt, editor on translation

In the late sixties the author discovered that hydrogen under pressure mobilizes otherwise rigid crystalline, rock-forming elements. This book explores the profound geological consequences of the phenomenon, essentially creating entirely new geological theory. Any serious student of the earth must take into account Vladimir Larin’s challenges to orthodoxy.

During the writing of Expanding Geospheres, E.A. Skobelin brought it to the editor’s attention that the Russian geologist, V.N. Larin had published a theory of hydrogen degassing in Russian over ten years earlier. On being contacted, Dr. Larin explained that he had worked on the concept from the time he first recognized it in 1968, and that his experiments in high-pressure petrology, geosynclinal folding, and other aspects of hydrogen systematics were ongoing and had provided him with many proofs. Text translation of a new and much expanded text was commissioned by Polar Publishing in Moscow, after which the author and editor collaborated to develop this book, which was first printed in December, 1993.

Starting with first principles, Larin shows that ionization potentials are the only feasible explanation for the distribution of elements and mass in the solar system and that the Earth must have accreted without melting, its core at first being a hydrogen-saturated mixture of elements of the “intermetal” type. Intermetals, which the author has created and studied in the laboratory, are metals that have been phase-changed by injection of “proton gas” [H nuclei] within their electron orbits.

This is new cosmo-chemistry, and it mitigates new geology by introducing entirely new concepts such as metallic composition for the middle and lower mantle, silicate-oxide composition being confined to the upper mantle and crust. A new theory of geosyncline development is proven with laboratory models, resolving old enigmas while [presciently] not conflicting with the geoidal deformation concept of geosyncline development set forth by Peter James in his later book of this series. Larin deals in detail with formation of Earth’s crust and with problems of plate tectonics, continental drifting as posited by PT enthusiasts.

Detailed chapters are devoted to seafloor spreading, to evolution of oceans, to rifting, trench development, and to metallogeny of rifts. Oceanic metal anomalies are shown to originate from deep planetary levels, rather than by surficial relocation of metals. Resolution is reached for long-standing paradoxes of isotope dating of the Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and U-Pb systems. New concepts of the origin and behavior of planetary magnetic fields and other enigmas related to the geology of the terrestriial planets and the Moon [e.g. mascons] are enunciated.

Every serious student of the Earth should understand the new insights of V.N. Larin as set forth in Hydridic Earth.

ISBN 0-9694506-2-1; hardcover, 256pp, many black and white diagrams and photographs, references, and index. US$33

http://www.polarpublishing.com/#hydridic

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Astrophysics, Books, Comet Halley, Earth, Inflating Earth, Inventions and Deceptions, Moon, Science, Solar System, Water. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Running Hot and Cold Extraterrestrial Water

  1. Pingback: The Moby Dick of Astronomy | MalagaBay

  2. Pingback: The Eye of Nebraska | MalagaBay

  3. Pingback: The Chalky Cretaceous: 1 – Scene Setting | MalagaBay

  4. malagabay says:

    Reported by RT: Water has been on Earth all along

    Analyzing the relatively untouched areas of the Earth’s mantle, researchers from the University of Hawaii at Manoa have reported that volcanic rocks acquired from Canada’s Baffin Island in 1985 contain water with a low amount of deuterium – a hydrogen isotope containing an extra neutron – compared to its level of hydrogen.

    The low levels of deuterium indicate that water did not come from a source outside Earth, such as a violent asteroid collision.

    It was previously believed that comets might have carried water to Earth.

    Scientists working with the European Space Agency’s Rosetta mission, which landed on the surface of a comet exactly one year ago, have said that asteroids were likely responsible for forming the Earth’s oceans.

    In December, researchers said that Comet 67P, had deuterium levels three times greater than water on Earth.

    Today asteroids have very limited water, that’s clear. But that was probably not always the case,” said Rosetta study leader Kathrin Altwegg.

    Water has been on Earth all along – study of volcanic rocks reveals
    RT.com 13 Nov, 2015 20:49
    https://www.rt.com/usa/321874-earth-water-origins-asteroid/

  5. malagabay says:

    Hydridic Earth: the New Geology of Our Primordially Hydrogen-rich Planet
    by Vladimir N. Larin, C. Warren Hunt, editor on translation 1993
    can be downloaded in PDF format at: http://hydrogen-future.com/en/list-c-larin-en/68-hydridicearthfrompolarpublishing-en.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s