This explanation of water on (in) Mercury does not seem reasonable or logical to me. In this age of so-called science the go to response to any assertion is to attack the author. I don't want to do that but I can see two sides to this and that. My undergrad degree is Physics and this hypothesis does not seem reasonable or logical. Firstly, recognizing that Mercury is the "smallest" planet does not negate the fact that is is very large, smaller than Earth but larger than the moon or any comet and so on. The average surface temperature may be on the warm side but the internal temperature is not a well known fact, possibly even unknown,. The consensus is that the planet is rocky but its composition and internal structure is unknown. If known it also is certainly not well-known. Several bits of information hint that the author of the hypothesis is of the secular persuasion. The figures regarding the loss of water to space, etc. point to a recent creation. The suggestion is obvious to me at least. The reader will need to do his or her own research but it seems there are many questions that need to be explored and the answers will be not be friendly or acceptable to the secular mind.
I suppose I am the author of this hypothesis about small comets and Mercury. Frank didn't think the small comets he discovered could survive that close to the sun. He knew nothing about what spacecraft Messenger discovered about Mercury.
Frank's small comet discovery was not accepted, precisely because it was so disruptive to the settled uniformitarianism of geology and space.
Earth's oceans can not be four billion years old. Oceans are denied the deep time needed to be the evolutionary creator of life.
I can see how you or anyone might think water on Mercury is outlandish on one hand or a significant discovery on the other hand. To the secular mind scientific knowledge is expanding and becoming more accurate and precise. Stated another way, Science is King. To the traditional or conservative mind the old ways are the right and better way, i.e. anything new is suspect. A healthy (educated?) view is cautious or skeptical but open to rational and logical thought. Perhaps Frank thought he had discovered something important. It does raise questions because Mercury is thought of as a "hot" planet seeing that it is closer to the sun. (N.B. sun worshipers!) Since it is not known we might suppose that God created Mercury as a "frozen" rock and it is thawing. How are we to know? Did the nuclear processes in the sun reach critical mass and ignite x years ago? Was the universe uniformly "hot" at some point of time in the past? Young earth? Frozen planets? If thousands of icy comets strike Mercury every year why don't any fall on Earth? In any case the discovery of water on Mercury raises some good questions even if the answers are clouded in mystery.
This morning I mailed you a copy of Frank's book, Cosmic Rain. The postage meter says you will get it next week.
Frank's discovery concerned earth. His imaging of the ultraviolet day-glow from space revealed transient 'spots' or 'holes'
He wasn't looking for small comets. He had to figure out what was causing the holes to appear in the day-glow images. He had absolutely determined it was not noise. The clouds of water vapor were the only answer. The small comets melt on entry into earth's atmosphere. They emit only a little bit of light for only a few moments. What Frank saw in the images was a dense water vapor cloud blocking out the day-glow.
There was nothing controversial about the discovery apart from the number of small comets, ten million a year. One about every three seconds.
The ideas of waters above the heaven (firmament) and of the waters predating the creation are profoundly biblical. The first few verses of Genesis anticipate a universe where water predominates.
OK, it is about three weeks later. Thanks for the book. It arrived and it took me this long to find the time to finish reading it. It seems the science is sound to my logical mind. Therefore I accept that small icy comets are frequently arriving from space. Are they the source of water on Mercury? According to Frank they are the source of the water in Earth's oceans. This, of course, makes Frank one that accepts (or believes) the evolutionary hypothesis that the water in the oceans accumulated over the course of multiple billions of years, but less than 4.5 billion years because, according to him, the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago. In short and in summary, Frank is one of the supposed scientists that are called evolutionary scientists. I, on the other hand, believe in the "young earth" and take the Bible description of creation as the best description of origins. Therefore, when I say the science is sound I refer strictly to the science and data pertaining to the observations and those interpretations consistent with the observations, not interpretations and speculations that pertain to notions contradictory to Divine Revelation. When I read Appendix 2 I realized how much time you have invested in this topic. Personally, I was quite impressed with Robert V. Gentry's work in the area of radiohalos back in the 1980's and 1990's. There is enough so-called evidence to make a case for either point of view but my decision is to go with the young earth perspective which means I will continue to take Frank with a grain of salt. The evidence seems to support the hypothesis that God created the universe with "the appearance of great age" which evolutionists use to support their rebellion against the Creator God which will not end well.
Evolutionary narratives: They fill the modern mind and explain everything. On this day the imagination is filled with wonder at the redeeming, saving love the God of Israel has for his people. Happy Passover, Happy Good Friday and Happy Sabbath.
The Lord would have us believe His Word in faith. But occasionally He reveals why we ought not believe all the evolutionary narratives. The beginning where water is present before the acts of creation, the division of the waters - the waters above the heavens..., the flood where it rained everywhere forty days and forty nights, all these mysteries in the Word are easier to imagine when we understand what Frank discovered in his small comets.
Frank's personal life was not particularly happy. All he cared about was his data. We should all take ourselves with a grain of salt. But, the data says what it says. Like Kepler and Galileo "and yet it moves"
I hope you will read my book review of COSMIC RAIN, if you haven't already. Its on my substack. I wrote it a couple weeks ago.
This explanation of water on (in) Mercury does not seem reasonable or logical to me. In this age of so-called science the go to response to any assertion is to attack the author. I don't want to do that but I can see two sides to this and that. My undergrad degree is Physics and this hypothesis does not seem reasonable or logical. Firstly, recognizing that Mercury is the "smallest" planet does not negate the fact that is is very large, smaller than Earth but larger than the moon or any comet and so on. The average surface temperature may be on the warm side but the internal temperature is not a well known fact, possibly even unknown,. The consensus is that the planet is rocky but its composition and internal structure is unknown. If known it also is certainly not well-known. Several bits of information hint that the author of the hypothesis is of the secular persuasion. The figures regarding the loss of water to space, etc. point to a recent creation. The suggestion is obvious to me at least. The reader will need to do his or her own research but it seems there are many questions that need to be explored and the answers will be not be friendly or acceptable to the secular mind.
I suppose I am the author of this hypothesis about small comets and Mercury. Frank didn't think the small comets he discovered could survive that close to the sun. He knew nothing about what spacecraft Messenger discovered about Mercury.
Frank's small comet discovery was not accepted, precisely because it was so disruptive to the settled uniformitarianism of geology and space.
Earth's oceans can not be four billion years old. Oceans are denied the deep time needed to be the evolutionary creator of life.
I can see how you or anyone might think water on Mercury is outlandish on one hand or a significant discovery on the other hand. To the secular mind scientific knowledge is expanding and becoming more accurate and precise. Stated another way, Science is King. To the traditional or conservative mind the old ways are the right and better way, i.e. anything new is suspect. A healthy (educated?) view is cautious or skeptical but open to rational and logical thought. Perhaps Frank thought he had discovered something important. It does raise questions because Mercury is thought of as a "hot" planet seeing that it is closer to the sun. (N.B. sun worshipers!) Since it is not known we might suppose that God created Mercury as a "frozen" rock and it is thawing. How are we to know? Did the nuclear processes in the sun reach critical mass and ignite x years ago? Was the universe uniformly "hot" at some point of time in the past? Young earth? Frozen planets? If thousands of icy comets strike Mercury every year why don't any fall on Earth? In any case the discovery of water on Mercury raises some good questions even if the answers are clouded in mystery.
This morning I mailed you a copy of Frank's book, Cosmic Rain. The postage meter says you will get it next week.
Frank's discovery concerned earth. His imaging of the ultraviolet day-glow from space revealed transient 'spots' or 'holes'
He wasn't looking for small comets. He had to figure out what was causing the holes to appear in the day-glow images. He had absolutely determined it was not noise. The clouds of water vapor were the only answer. The small comets melt on entry into earth's atmosphere. They emit only a little bit of light for only a few moments. What Frank saw in the images was a dense water vapor cloud blocking out the day-glow.
There was nothing controversial about the discovery apart from the number of small comets, ten million a year. One about every three seconds.
The ideas of waters above the heaven (firmament) and of the waters predating the creation are profoundly biblical. The first few verses of Genesis anticipate a universe where water predominates.
It sounds interesting. I look forward to reading it.
OK, it is about three weeks later. Thanks for the book. It arrived and it took me this long to find the time to finish reading it. It seems the science is sound to my logical mind. Therefore I accept that small icy comets are frequently arriving from space. Are they the source of water on Mercury? According to Frank they are the source of the water in Earth's oceans. This, of course, makes Frank one that accepts (or believes) the evolutionary hypothesis that the water in the oceans accumulated over the course of multiple billions of years, but less than 4.5 billion years because, according to him, the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago. In short and in summary, Frank is one of the supposed scientists that are called evolutionary scientists. I, on the other hand, believe in the "young earth" and take the Bible description of creation as the best description of origins. Therefore, when I say the science is sound I refer strictly to the science and data pertaining to the observations and those interpretations consistent with the observations, not interpretations and speculations that pertain to notions contradictory to Divine Revelation. When I read Appendix 2 I realized how much time you have invested in this topic. Personally, I was quite impressed with Robert V. Gentry's work in the area of radiohalos back in the 1980's and 1990's. There is enough so-called evidence to make a case for either point of view but my decision is to go with the young earth perspective which means I will continue to take Frank with a grain of salt. The evidence seems to support the hypothesis that God created the universe with "the appearance of great age" which evolutionists use to support their rebellion against the Creator God which will not end well.
Evolutionary narratives: They fill the modern mind and explain everything. On this day the imagination is filled with wonder at the redeeming, saving love the God of Israel has for his people. Happy Passover, Happy Good Friday and Happy Sabbath.
The Lord would have us believe His Word in faith. But occasionally He reveals why we ought not believe all the evolutionary narratives. The beginning where water is present before the acts of creation, the division of the waters - the waters above the heavens..., the flood where it rained everywhere forty days and forty nights, all these mysteries in the Word are easier to imagine when we understand what Frank discovered in his small comets.
Frank's personal life was not particularly happy. All he cared about was his data. We should all take ourselves with a grain of salt. But, the data says what it says. Like Kepler and Galileo "and yet it moves"
I hope you will read my book review of COSMIC RAIN, if you haven't already. Its on my substack. I wrote it a couple weeks ago.