SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Planetary Science Institute reports:
By developing a new method for measuring isotopic ratios of water and carbon dioxide remotely, scientists have found that the water in Saturn's rings and satellites is unexpectedly like water on the Earth, except on Saturn's moon Phoebe, where the water is more unusual than on any other object so far studied in the Solar System.
The results [...] mean we need to change models of the formation of the Solar System because the new results are in conflict with existing models.
Isotopes are different forms of elements but with differing numbers of neutrons. Adding a neutron adds mass to the element, and that can change processes of how a planet, comet, or moon is formed. Water is composed of two hydrogen (H) atoms and one oxygen atom, H2O. Adding a neutron to one hydrogen atom, then called deuterium (D), increases the mass of a water molecule (HDO) by about 5 percent, and that small change results in isotopic differences in the formation of a planet, moon, or comet, and changes the evaporation of water after formation. The deuterium to hydrogen ratio (D/H) is a fingerprint of the formation conditions, including temperature and evolution over time. Evaporating water enriches deuterium in the remaining surface.
[...] Some models [of the formation of our solar system] predict the D/H should be 10 times higher for the Saturn system than on Earth. But the new measurements show this is not the case for Saturn's rings and satellites except Saturn's moon Phoebe.
For those who enjoy a little intriguing entertainment, it's worth noting that this finding is consistent with Velikofsky's Cosmos (which is, today, largely synonymous with the Electric Universe).
Isotopic Ratios of Saturn's Rings and Satellites: Implications for the Origin of Water and Phoebe (DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.11.029) (DX)
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Sunday December 23 2018, @11:47PM (3 children)
The "Electric Universe Theory", is a sort of anti-science conspiracy theory that suggests that all of modern cosmology is wrong. They suggest that there were wildly variant orbits of the planets within human cultural memory. As stated above, the videos are rambling, present coincidental ideas as 'evidence' and mostly strike out at what they call the 'dogma' of physics. As far as I can see, they do not propose an alternative theory of planetary formation at all.
Please editors, this site should really call out conspiracy theories for what they are and support rational analysis of counter theories if they rise to that standard. The EU 'theory' fits the prior catergory, not the latter!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 24 2018, @01:58AM (2 children)
I wrote the comment about "rambling" but still consider the EU input valuable. They were spot-on regarding the rosetta mission. The scientists were overconfident that the surface would have the consistency of ice, but instead it was black as coal and hard as rock (like EU people said). The engineers designed the lander to the wrong specs and it was nearly lost due to this overconfidence by mainstream astronomers.
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Monday December 24 2018, @02:29AM (1 child)
I'm sorry but EU just doesn't rise to any level of scientific debate. They may occasionally be right by accident but it's so laughably flawed to say that planets were on fundamentally different orbits in human memory. There would be plenty more evidence of that. Gravitational laws may not be perfectly defined, but they are a lot better defined then that!
Frankly, I see this as an example of the uncritical nature of debate that leads to people picking their own truths without any understanding at all. Science is not a belief system, it's a set of hypotheses that can be deeply inspected by any critical mind. Learn the formulae, run the numbers and if you find a gap, great! But naively throwing out centuries of well established, measured, critiqued and supported theories is not justified by the handwaving of something like EU. We may as well believe in creationism if that's the level of evidence we accept.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 24 2018, @03:01AM
They weren't right on "accident" though. They were right because they didnt have an unhealthy belief in the current dominating theory of comet formation. Instead they followed the evidence that comets are pretty much the same as asteroids (at least the surface), which has been indicated in many previous observations.
That is why they have valuable input.