No Sun or Moon

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Ah, but any poet worth his salt is dealing in words, which in the Greek = logos which is the same root word from which we derive logic. A good poet has to be a good logician. The same is true of a good composer. In other words, anybody with a reasonably educated intelligence can think and talk about scientific phenomena profitably. All it takes is informing oneself.

Oddly enough, last night I came upon this perfect quote from Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass" that just seemed so fitting as an answer to your previous question:

"I can't believe THAT!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's not use trying," she said: "one CAN'T believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

There's no doubt that it exists. The question is, why is it not being studied? We might find out a lot of things that we currently are not aware of if we were to admit that this force exists on a galactic scale.

The fields are being studied, but maybe not in the framework in which you use them. Maybe 'the big pushes' happen so infrequently that we have no way to capture any data, and so resources are concentrated on what is available (with an entire universe, there's a lot to do).

But yeah, it would be "fun" (in a strange way) if a planet-sized body was seen in a chaotic path through the sky (but I wouldn't want its journey to affect earth).

Me either! Think of what a 'Tunguska event' of larger magnitude would do to any city!

Then again, there are comets. Though not so large, these are chaotic "planets" (planet = wandering star in Greek); if they were acknowledged to be, not balls of ice, but large chunks of rock with magnetic charges, what might be learned from them?

But they are balls of ice (and stuff). The results of Deep Impact showed that these dirty snow balls are made up of frozen water with bits of dust throughout. I don't think that comets are planetoid like Pluto or even Earth in nature, i.e. no iron core.

Yes. It does. Which is why I can't get enough of studying them.

Cool on that.

To make a lame attempt in staying on topic, I hope to be able to show the kids (again) the moon via a small telescope tonight. Regardless of whether it was once part of earth, is a captured planetoid, or is the beautiful Artemis or the wayward Tilion, tis still a wonderous thing to see.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

But they are balls of ice (and stuff). The results of Deep Impact showed that these dirty snow balls are made up of frozen water with bits of dust throughout. I don't think that comets are planetoid like Pluto or even Earth in nature, i.e. no iron core.

"And stuff". I took a look at the website. The images realize three "ice rich" areas on Tempel 1: they look like three little dots on its surface. That is not "made of ice" in any reasonable person's view. But NASA is part of the scientific establishment, and it wouldn't surprise me if their interpretation is skewed toward what they hope to find.

Speaking of which:

The presence of the observed mix of materials requires efficient methods of heating the glassy materials and cooling them to crystalline material and mixing high temperature with low temperature materials over large distances in the early protosolar nebula. The evolution of the protosolar nebula was more complex than a simple homogenous gas and dusty disk heated solely by the temperature of the sun.

In other words, the observers have to admit that something caused intense heating and cooling in quick succession, and that the heat of the sun can't by itself explain it. They also can't give up on their uniformitarian (early protosolar nebula) paradigm. Electrical phenomena fit the observation of intense heat followed by quick cooling.

The best test of a paradigm and theory is if it has predictive power. Too often, modern physicists are surprised by what they find in space. Those who have been developing the paradigm of an "electric universe", are not surprised by what they find; instead, what's being found is precisely what they expect. That goes a long way with me.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

"And stuff".

I should know better - my bad (just being lazy). The "stuff" is made up of particles that have collided with the comet as it sweeps the galaxy. There are other elements present that were there since the comet was formed (by the Galactic Yeti, who rolls them and tosses them towards the sun).

What is not present is an iron or other heavy metal core.

I took a look at the website. The images realize three "ice rich" areas on Tempel 1: they look like three little dots on its surface. That is not "made of ice" in any reasonable person's view.

Those ice patches are of interest as there's not enough there to account for all of the water/ice/vapor that spews from the comet, and so it comes from inside.

And maybe it's not "made of ice." Watermelons are almost 100% water, though you may not think that they are "made of water," especially if you haven't even cut into the surface. Boil one down, and you'd see that most of its mass is from liquid water.

Same goes for comets, though they may not be as refreshing.

But NASA is part of the scientific establishment, and it wouldn't surprise me if their interpretation is skewed toward what they hope to find.

That's funny. Wouldn't you think that some other government's space agency would just love to make NASA look stupid, ... , unless they too are part of the conspiracy...hmm.

What was that about the sun and moon again?