The prevailing view is that comets are primordial aggregates of ice and interstellar dust which are supposed to be the building blocks of our solar system.. however if this turns out not to be true.. and that the geological implications of comets would turn standard planetary formation model on its head.. and likely the careers of many people.
They detected evidence of water molecules remotely.. in the coma of this comet and thus assume that there is so much ice.. there are other possibilities however that would more readily explain the presence of water and no ice.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodissociation#Photolysis_in_photosynthesis
There is also the notion of all of the other electro-chemical process that were measured http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141023091805.htm
In which apparently these gases are supposed to have melted off of the surface or out of the interior of the comet when it is at a FAR greater distance from the sun than what it would take for these elements to reach sublimation. I'm not saying that I know why this is... I'm just saying that the standard model that these things are caused by the heat from the sun must be false.. so why do are these plums of gases exist if we know for a fact that there should be no sublimation at this time?
What this means, if you are not following, is that the entire current standard planetary formation theory should be scrapped.. but the fact that this is still being held as unlocking some mystery of the universe means that these people have stepped from the realm of science and into the realm of dogma and propaganda.
Again.. If it is clear that comets do not contain the building blocks of planets and have been circuiting for billions of years.. then it means that comets are just more space junk from impacts with already formed astral bodies.. The egg does not lay the chicken. If comets already contain the elements seen in planets then they would not be able to have taken part in the formation of said planets and their elements...
The more I read these explanations.. http://www.space.com/53-comets-formation-discovery-and-exploration.html
The more it just seems that they are making more and more presumptions contrary to fact.
They keep on saying "hard as ice" as if the rocks on the surface of this thing MIGHT be entirely solid ice... very misleading.
"Although the power of the hammer was gradually increased, we were not able to go deep into the surface,"
"67P proved to be a "tough nut to crack." Yes! and nowhere did I see mentioned that the reason that this thing bounced and that the harpoon didn't work is because they were geared for ice and not solid rock.
Max Planck said it all:
“Science advances one funeral at a time.†What do you think he meant by that and why do you think it has changed?
Do you think that the scientific community is some holy sanctified priesthood of logic? There are no Vulcans for real..
Do you think that anything that threatened the status quo of the current "giants" like Steven Hawking and Tyson is not going to be black-balled immediately? No no.. it is just like philosophy.. the student learns from the master and continues the tradition even into folly... their foundation may be known to be flawed but they keep building on it.
Ultimately.. IMO, the goal of many scientists today is to prove Panspermia.. and the recent discoveries on the nature of comets hinders this idea because they had so much riding on it.. wishful thinking is not science.
Quote:
Why in the world would it be smooth?
I don't mean like a pebble from a lake bed.. but this thing looks like it has impact craters.. and is most certainly not round.. as is commonly held in snow-Ball.
If this was made of ice that constantly vaporized and then settled again after parhelion then I wouldn't expect to see such mountainous and rocky terrain.
This thing looks like a chunk of a moon.. and not the origin of life on earth.
Edited, Dec 1st 2014 5:16pm by Kelvyquayo