Cosmic Snowflakes and Earth's Cosmic Blizzard ( Mini-comet spotter?)

In article t,
Craig Fink wrote:

Cosmic Snowflakes are clear, like all Snowflakes made of ice. The white
appearance has to do with refraction/reflection of the light by the
Snowflakes. Makes them rather hard to see with the Hubble.

Also, they haven't gone unnoticed by everyone. They have been noticed in
their impacts with Spacecraft, it's just the explanation of what caused the
impacts (or model) is incorrect. From the Teflon/Silver/Paint shielding
material used on many Spacecraft the ratio of Cosmic Snowflakes to
Micrometeoroid impacts is quite high. Fifty percent or more of the so
called Micrometeoroid impacts are actually Cosmic Snowflake impacts of
various sizes and various purity. The most pristine Snowflakes only
debonding the Teflon from the Silver and Paint, leaving no hole. Some with
lots of debonding and a little hole (dirty snowflake, or snowflake with
nucleus), and finally holes with very little debonding (micrometeoroid).
Even some impacts that may be two or more Cosmic Snowflakes stuck together.

Very shallow craters are formed in Aerogel by Cosmic Snowflakes. A glass
lined crater with little or no other debris from Cosmic Dust. Impact of low
density Cosmic Snowflakes with low density Glass.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @
--

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Hop David wrote:
The smaller the comet, the greater the surface to volume ratio, and the
tinier the gravity. I believe a miniature comet would have a miniature
life span.
So I'm skeptical of Frank's theory.

Most everybody is skeptical of Frank's theory... to put it politely. :-)
The properties of his stealth snowballs need to be rather carefully
tuned -- and to show remarkably little natural variation -- to escape all
other forms of detection.

***{I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I think he makes a
pretty good case. Good enough, certainly, to shift the burden of proof
to his opponents. See http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/lecture/ for
the details. --MJ}***

For example, people have looked for them in archived Hubble images. If
there were really as many of them as Frank proposed, then some of them
should have crossed Hubble's field of view by chance... and even highly
nonreflective objects shouldn't have been completely invisible to *those*
cameras. Yet none were found.

***{An object moving across Hubble's line of sight at several miles/sec
is obviously not going to produce an image. The exposure time would be
too small. The telescope would have to be located on the nightside of
the Earth to avoid dayside atmospheric glare, would have to catch the
small comet in the light just before it entered the Earth's shadow or
just after it emerged from it, and would have to swing in the prograde
direction at an appropriate rate, in order to keep it in view long
enough to achieve the needed exposure time. This method of telescope
usage is what Dr. Frank calls "skeet shooting mode." And when those
conditions have been met, the small comets were in fact detected. See
http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/lecture/lect8.html. --MJ}***

It's just possible that Frank found a real atmospheric phenomenon -- if
memory serves, there was some mildly supportive evidence from another
group -- but nobody takes his proposed cause very seriously.

***{Why not take a look at his website, at the links given above, and
supply us with a point-by-point critique of his theory? I, for one,
would be very interested in such comments. --MJ}***

************************************************** ***************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ

the following description may not be quite right, written a few days ago

Cosmic Snowflakes and Earth's Cosmic Blizzard where they are formed in the
tail of the Magnetosphere seems to be a much better theory as to what is
causing the noctilucent clouds ...

and, has changed in the last few days while looking into noctilucent
clouds

Theories can evolve, they can be corrected or modify to bring additional
observations into them. While, looking for a correlation between
noctilucent clouds and phases of the moon (which does look like there may
be some correlation looking a four years of observations). The best data
set seems to have been collected by the noctilucent cloud group, living in
the northern regions of the Earth. Very raw unrefined data, but valuable in
that it records observation along pictures and videos of the unexplained
the somewhat unexplained phenomenon.

The noctilucent cloud Observer's Homepage ...
http://www.kersland.plus.com/
.... with archive from 1996 to 2005 ...
http://www.kersland.plus.com/archive.htm
.... and recent sightings from the current year 2006 ...
http://www.kersland.plus.com/nlcreps.htm
.... containing this recent video that just might be ...
http://www.kersland.plus.com/images/...001_shortb.avi
.... either Cosmic Ice Tornado (like a dust devil) sucking the noctilucent
ice cloud up into the Magnetosphere. Earth's Cosmic Bizzard in action, a
Cosmic Ice Tornado were the noctilucent cloud is snowing Up into the
Heavens. Cosmic Snowflakes caught up in a whirlwind of plasma (electrons
and protons) accelerating into the Magnetosphere.

This Theory of Earth's Cosmic Blizzard would require the formation of Macro
Structures (larger structures) that can form in the plasma/magnetosphere
environment of Earth's Magnetosphere. The Macro-Structure in the Plasma
would resemble whirl-winds or tornados of plasma. Something like a tornado
within a tornado, stretching from pole to pole along a magnetic field line
of Earth's magnetic field.

An inner Plasma Tornado of Electrons, an Electron Plasma Tornado, all trying
to repel each other with their negative charge, but can't because the outer
Plasma Tornado is made of protons. The electrons with a very high electric
charge to mass ratio are spinning very tight spirals. The outer Plasma
Tornado made of Protons, holding them together, corralling them together,
much closer together than they should be.

The outer Plasma Tornado of Protons, spiraling like the electrons, but in
the opposite direction. Their electric charge to mass ratio is much much
lower than the Electron Plasma Tornado. So, they spin in a much larger
diameter spiral. Attracted to the negative charge of the inner Electron
Plasma Tornado, the density of protons is much larger than one would
expect, the protons are much closer together than a normal plasma.

An Electron/Proton Plasma Tornados, like an inverted Atom, electrons on the
inside, protons all around, held together by their opposite charges and the
dynamics of Earth's Magnetic Field. Is there such a Macro-Plasma structure?
Has someone already Theorized it? What did they call it? What other
Macro-Plasma structures are there? Is it real, do the equations support
such a Macro-Plasma structure?

A Plasma Tornado that can lift and accelerate tiny charged ice crystals out
of a Noctilucent Cloud and into Space to become a Cosmic Snowflake? The
Electron Plasma Tornado acting like a mini-Ion engine for the Cosmic
Snowflakes. First giving the Ice Crystals a negative charge, bombarded with
electrons. Negatively charged Ice Crystals, accelerating towards the Proton
Plasma Tornado. Entering the Proton Plasma Tornado, a shower of protons,
stripping the electrons and reversing the charge on the much more massive
Ice Crystals. Ice Crystals, accelerated first by the electro-static charge
of an Ion-Engine, then accelerated further by impacts with a shower of
Protons, reversing charge and continuing to accelerate. Repelled by the
electric charge of the Proton Plasma Tornado, another Ion-Engine. Finally,
acting like a positively charged particle in the Plasma environment of the
Earth's Magnetosphere.

The Proton/Electron plasma, creating Water from Earth's Oxygen and the Sun's
Hydrogen, creating noctilucent clouds, clouds than Snow up into the Cosmos.

Humm, interesting.

Cosmic Snowflakes are clear, like all Snowflakes made of ice. The white
appearance has to do with refraction/reflection of the light by the
Snowflakes. Makes them rather hard to see with the Hubble.

Also, they haven't gone unnoticed by everyone. They have been noticed in
their impacts with Spacecraft, it's just the explanation of what caused
the impacts (or model) is incorrect. From the Teflon/Silver/Paint
shielding material used on many Spacecraft the ratio of Cosmic Snowflakes
to
Micrometeoroid impacts is quite high. Fifty percent or more of the so
called Micrometeoroid impacts are actually Cosmic Snowflake impacts of
various sizes and various purity. The most pristine Snowflakes only
debonding the Teflon from the Silver and Paint, leaving no hole. Some
with lots of debonding and a little hole (dirty snowflake, or snowflake
with nucleus), and finally holes with very little debonding
(micrometeoroid). Even some impacts that may be two or more Cosmic
Snowflakes stuck together.

Very shallow craters are formed in Aerogel by Cosmic Snowflakes. A glass
lined crater with little or no other debris from Cosmic Dust. Impact of
low density Cosmic Snowflakes with low density Glass.


Noctilucent Clouds snow upwards into the Heavens creating Cosmic Snowflakes.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @
--

Mitchell Jones wrote:


Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Hop David wrote:
The smaller the comet, the greater the surface to volume ratio, and the
tinier the gravity. I believe a miniature comet would have a miniature
life span.
So I'm skeptical of Frank's theory.

Most everybody is skeptical of Frank's theory... to put it politely.
:-) The properties of his stealth snowballs need to be rather carefully
tuned -- and to show remarkably little natural variation -- to escape
all other forms of detection.

***{I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I think he makes a
pretty good case. Good enough, certainly, to shift the burden of proof
to his opponents. See http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/lecture/ for
the details. --MJ}***

For example, people have looked for them in archived Hubble images. If
there were really as many of them as Frank proposed, then some of them
should have crossed Hubble's field of view by chance... and even highly
nonreflective objects shouldn't have been completely invisible to
*those*
cameras. Yet none were found.

***{An object moving across Hubble's line of sight at several miles/sec
is obviously not going to produce an image. The exposure time would be
too small. The telescope would have to be located on the nightside of
the Earth to avoid dayside atmospheric glare, would have to catch the
small comet in the light just before it entered the Earth's shadow or
just after it emerged from it, and would have to swing in the prograde
direction at an appropriate rate, in order to keep it in view long
enough to achieve the needed exposure time. This method of telescope
usage is what Dr. Frank calls "skeet shooting mode." And when those
conditions have been met, the small comets were in fact detected. See
http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/lecture/lect8.html. --MJ}***

It doesn't bother me that Dr. Frank came up with a model of large comets
coated with a thin black hydrocarbon crust to explain the invisibility of
an anomaly in observations of something. It's the anomalies where
discoveries are made. The first model (theory) developed quite often needs
adjustments when further observations are made, or a total different model
(theory) proposed. Often, anomalies are overlooked, ignored, dismissed for
various reasons because it wasn't what the observer expected. Also, if a
new model or theory is proposed, it's always in the realm of experience of
the person proposing it. Explained with the current understanding of that
person or group.

If a better model or theory comes along to explain the anomaly, it's
probably simpler and leads to a better understand that leads to some
conclusions that can be test. To see if the new theory is correct.

In the Aerogel, the largest diameter impacts are the anomalous shallow
impacts with no discernable debris or dust. It's just the image of an
impact left in the glass. Really quite uninteresting to someone who has set
out to collect micrometeors or Cosmic Dust. They also explain away the
anomaly in terms they can understand, some sort of ultra high velocity
impact were everything is vaporized, dust and all. Anomaly explained, now
where are the particle that I'm interested in? Ultra high velocity impacts
creating the largest and most shallow craters in the Aerogel? No, impacts
with pristine low density Cosmic Snowflakes, much better explanation.


It's just possible that Frank found a real atmospheric phenomenon -- if
memory serves, there was some mildly supportive evidence from another
group -- but nobody takes his proposed cause very seriously.

***{Why not take a look at his website, at the links given above, and
supply us with a point-by-point critique of his theory? I, for one,
would be very interested in such comments. --MJ}***

************************************************** ***************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ

lol, same here. ;-)

a very weak force. Maybe like a bunch of charged Snowflakes, held
together by their charge, acting as a group but much less dense than what
is normally thought of as a comet. His calculation of 10 m diameter for
the amount of observed water might actually be 1000 m diameter for a
Cosmic Snowball. Not being observed yet because they are more like a
cloud of Snowflakes.


They should still glitter in the sunlight though; he needed the
hypothetical black covering to make them invisible to detection.



If they glittering, then they glittering. You have to look for glitter.
Important things to consider when looking for glitter:


Wouldn't the Sunlight around Earth vaporize these snowflakes?

a very weak force. Maybe like a bunch of charged Snowflakes, held
together by their charge, acting as a group but much less dense than
what is normally thought of as a comet. His calculation of 10 m diameter
for the amount of observed water might actually be 1000 m diameter for a
Cosmic Snowball. Not being observed yet because they are more like a
cloud of Snowflakes.


They should still glitter in the sunlight though; he needed the
hypothetical black covering to make them invisible to detection.



If they glittering, then they glittering. You have to look for glitter.
Important things to consider when looking for glitter:


Wouldn't the Sunlight around Earth vaporize these snowflakes?

Reflection or refraction changes the direction of the energy. Absorption,
would be different.