PDA

View Full Version : Hydroplate oxygen prediction validated



Stripe
October 29th, 2015, 11:03 PM
PREDICTION 46: Comets will be found to be rich in Oxygen-18.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity4.html#wp9547089

Scientists shocked by molecular oxygen on comet.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/First_detection_of_molecular_oxygen_at_a_comet

Nick M
October 30th, 2015, 07:04 AM
I thought about checking my book because it seemed like he predicted it.

ok doser
October 30th, 2015, 07:09 AM
there was a clickbait the other day about a comet spewing alcohol and sugar -didja see it?

Stripe
October 30th, 2015, 08:03 AM
To be fair, the prediction has not been confirmed yet.

chair
October 30th, 2015, 08:15 AM
PREDICTION 46: Comets will be found to be rich in Oxygen-18.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity4.html#wp9547089

Scientists shocked by molecular oxygen on comet.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/First_detection_of_molecular_oxygen_at_a_comet

YOu do know the difference between "molecular oxygen" and "Oxygen 18" - right?

gcthomas
October 30th, 2015, 08:37 AM
YOu do know the difference between "molecular oxygen" and "Oxygen 18" - right?

I suspect that they don't. But not matching reality never has stopped claims that "predictions" have been met in the past.

alwight
October 30th, 2015, 09:46 AM
Scientists shocked by molecular oxygen on comet.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/First_detection_of_molecular_oxygen_at_a_comet
Is scientists being quite surprised the same as being shocked? :think:

Stripe
October 30th, 2015, 09:56 AM
I suspect that they don't. But not matching reality never has stopped claims that "predictions" have been met in the past.

Which is why I didn't use the word "met" in the title. Try to have a discussion instead of reacting. :up:

Tell us why Oxygen-18 cannot be molecular oxygen. :thumb:

gcthomas
October 30th, 2015, 10:15 AM
Which is why I didn't use the word "met" in the title. Try to have a discussion instead of reacting. :up:

You said "Hydroplate oxygen prediction validated". If you didn't mean 'met' or 'confirmed', how is 'validated' different?


Tell us why Oxygen-18 cannot be molecular oxygen. :thumb:

The prediction is noting to do with the molecular state of oxygen, rather the isotopes found. And O-18 has been found pretty much every place it has been looked for, so the prediction might as well have been "Oxygen in comets will have the same stable isotopes as everywhere else, exactly as scientists have always expected".

Jose Fly
October 30th, 2015, 10:22 AM
So the title of the thread is "prediction validated", but in the actual thread it's "prediction not met".

Creationists are hilarious.

Stripe
October 30th, 2015, 10:50 AM
You said "Hydroplate oxygen prediction validated". If you didn't mean 'met' or 'confirmed', how is 'validated' different?:AMR:

Is English your second language? "Met" or "fulfilled" would say that the deal is done — as with Prediction 37 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107612) — whereas "validated" indicates it is a reasonable thing to expect given the step we have taken toward calling it a "success."


The prediction is noting to do with the molecular state of oxygenWe know. That's why we said the prediction is "valid" rather than "successful," and why we spelled out explicitly the difference between what was predicted and what has been found so far.

And if that wasn't good enough, my post saying there is still work to do before the prediction is "confirmed" should have cleared things up.


rather the isotopes found. And O-18 has been found pretty much every place it has been looked for, so the prediction might as well have been "Oxygen in comets will have the same stable isotopes as everywhere else, exactly as scientists have always expected".Nope. You haven't even read the prediction, let alone understood the thrust of this thread. How about you stop, take a nice deep breath and start again, reading for clarity this time instead of closing your mind to the possibility that things might be a little different than you believe. :up:

Heck, the guys who sent the spaceship up are willing to reconsider their notion of how the entire solar system formed on the basis of this discovery, but you're not even willing to open your eyes.

Telling.

Can you tell us why molecular oxygen cannot be Oxygen-18?

gcthomas
October 30th, 2015, 11:13 AM
Is scientists being quite surprised the same as being shocked? :think:

O2 was predicted to be on the comet, but scientists were expecting it to be found at rather lower concentrations than that find.

The team analysed more than 3000 samples collected around the comet between September 2014 and March 2015 to identify the O2. They determined an abundance of 1–10% relative to H2O, with an average value of 3.80 ± 0.85%, an order of magnitude higher than predicted by models describing the chemistry in molecular clouds. from the link in the OP. Didn't the poster read it?

6days
October 30th, 2015, 11:18 AM
from the link in the OP. Didn't the poster read it?

know. That's why we said the prediction is "valid" rather than "successful," and why we spelled out explicitly the difference between what was predicted and what has been found so far.

And if that wasn't good enough, my post saying there is still work to do before the prediction is "confirmed" should have cleared things up.

gcthomas
October 30th, 2015, 11:28 AM
:AMR:

Is English your second language? "Met" or "fulfilled" would say that the deal is done — as with Prediction 37 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107612) — whereas "validated" indicates it is a reasonable thing to expect given the step we have taken toward calling it a "success."
[/b]

From dictionary.com, the first relevent definition is:

a*:to support or corroborate on a sound or authoritative basis<experiments designed to*validate*the hypothesis>

Are you entirely unaware of the meaning of the word when used in scientific contexts?

Finding molecular oxygen on a comet is not remotely related to the isotopes found. You do know that comets are largely frozen water, with a lot of oxygen atoms? Oxygen is ubiquitous.

Jose Fly
October 30th, 2015, 12:02 PM
From dictionary.com, the first relevent definition is:

a*:to support or corroborate on a sound or authoritative basis<experiments designed to*validate*the hypothesis>

Are you entirely unaware of the meaning of the word when used in scientific contexts?

Finding molecular oxygen on a comet is not remotely related to the isotopes found. You do know that comets are largely frozen water, with a lot of oxygen atoms? Oxygen is ubiquitous.

Well done. :up:

It's about time for Stripe to lock the thread, isn't it? :chuckle:

ok doser
October 30th, 2015, 12:10 PM
From dictionary.com, the first relevent definition is:

a*:to support or corroborate on a sound or authoritative basis<experiments designed to*validate*the hypothesis>

a question:

would finding no oxygen support or not support the hypothesis?

gcthomas
October 30th, 2015, 12:20 PM
a question:

would finding no oxygen support or not support the hypothesis?

A better question:

Does the presence of oxygen molecules, or alternatively O-18 atoms, shift the balance of evidence from the scientific consensus towards Walt's imaginings?

The answer, to this question as well as your question, is no, the presence of oxygen molecules does not add support to Walt's hypotheses.

Wick Stick
October 30th, 2015, 12:22 PM
I'm wondering why this is in the Religion forum?

ok doser
October 30th, 2015, 12:23 PM
A better question:

Does the presence of oxygen molecules, or alternatively O-18 atoms, shift the balance of evidence from the scientific consensus towards Walt's imaginings?

The answer, to this question as well as your question, is no, the presence of oxygen molecules does not add support to Walt's hypotheses.


the answer to my question is that finding no oxygen would not support the hypothesis

now, i realize that no isotope studies have been performed (as far as i know), but can't you see that the presence of oxygen in any form is a first step?

gcthomas
October 30th, 2015, 12:26 PM
I'm wondering why this is in the Religion forum?

Because Stripey believes Walt's nonsense as thoroughly as an inerrant article of faith. It is only a caricature of science, so religion is a good description for it.

Stripe
October 30th, 2015, 12:39 PM
From dictionary.com.Oh, so now the dictionary definition is good enough, huh? :chuckle:


Are you entirely unaware of the meaning of the word when used in scientific contexts? It's called a discussion. Your misunderstanding and the clarity of my contributions has been established. Feel free to catch up any time you like. :up:


Finding molecular oxygen on a comet is not remotely related to the isotopes found.

Nobody said it was. In fact, it was made very clear that the prediction has not been fulfilled. Perhaps you'd like to read the prediction, put it alongside what we have just discovered and contribute something sensible instead of barging in and demanding that nothing of value can come from a competing hypothesis.


Oxygen is ubiquitous.Which is why we are studying its form, rather than being amazed that it is there.

Is your sole contribution going to be to declare the bleedingly obvious?


Does the presence of oxygen molecules ... shift the balance of evidence from the scientific consensus towards Walt's [ideas]?Yes. Because Dr Brown's model provides a pathway for molecular oxygen to be part of comets, while this discovery forces evolutionists to re-evaluate their entire understanding of the solar system's origins.

You could start by answering the question you're desperate to avoid:

Why can molecular oxygen not be formed from Oxygen-18?

I'm wondering why this is in the Religion forum?
Because we know the evolutionists will be here. :)

gcthomas
October 30th, 2015, 12:44 PM
The scientists said they were surprised by the quantity of oxygen molecules, not by their presence which was expected. What concentration did Walt's theory predict? What?! Walt doesn't make quantitative predictions? Any didn't you day6 so?

See, Walt only does rhetoric, not science, just as you do emoticons and childlike insults instead of discussions. You can't even respond to questions. What sort of foolish troll are you?

Stripe
October 30th, 2015, 12:46 PM
The scientists said they were surprised by the quantity of oxygen molecules, not by their presence which was expected. What concentration did Walt's theory predict? What?! Walt doesn't make quantitative predictions? Any didn't you day6 so? See, Walt only does rhetoric, not science, just as you do emoticons and childlike insults instead of discussions. You can't even respond to questions. What sort of foolish troll are you?

Your desperation aside, do you have an answer to the question?

Why can molecular oxygen not be formed from Oxygen-18?

Wick Stick
October 30th, 2015, 12:51 PM
Because we know the evolutionists will be here. :)
I'm not even sure such a group exists. :dizzy:

The people with the little fish-with-legs things on the back of their car... they aren't really "evolutionists." They're just making fun of you.

I saw one the other day that was squid-shaped and said "Chthulu" in the middle. Do you suppose they are really offering sacrifices to chthulu?

Perhaps we should rail against chthulu-ism.

Jarrod

Stripe
October 30th, 2015, 12:55 PM
Idiots... For your info, dictionaries are not good sources of technical definitions, only for finding common usage.


From dictionary.com, the first relevent definition is:

a*:to support or corroborate on a sound or authoritative basis<experiments designed to*validate*the hypothesis>

Are you entirely unaware of the meaning of the word when used in scientific contexts?

Classic. :darwinsm:

Stripe
October 30th, 2015, 12:57 PM
I'm not even sure such a group exists.You'll have to get out more. :)

Desert Reign
October 30th, 2015, 01:32 PM
PREDICTION 46: Comets will be found to be rich in Oxygen-18.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity4.html#wp9547089

Scientists shocked by molecular oxygen on comet.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/First_detection_of_molecular_oxygen_at_a_comet

I'm not falling on either side of this debate, however, I should point out that predicting that something will be found is not a scientific test of a hypothesis. This is because the prediction isn't falsifiable - you can never prove that you haven't found what you are looking for. Predicting that something will be found by a certain date is indeed falsifiable. But of course you wouldn't do that would you?

I did say I wasn't on either side of the debate. My point works in the opposite direction. I have heard of geologists predicting that certain fossils will be found in certain strata. And then when they find them, they say that this proves the theory of evolution and their own geological theories. But it of course doesn't. Because it is not a falsifiable test as not finding them would not disprove the theory.

Stripe
October 30th, 2015, 02:01 PM
When a prediction is made and it is shown true, it lends credibility to the explanation presented that led to the prediction. Thus when a model says free oxygen should not be found, that counts against it, which is why the evolutionists are rethinking their ideas.

Of course, we will have to wait on closer examination of the comet to find out whether Dr Brown's prediction is successful.

However, a prediction is different from a means of falsification. That a prediction does not bear out is not terminal to a theory.

User Name
October 30th, 2015, 02:10 PM
I'm wondering why this is in the Religion forum?

This thread was posted in the Religion forum because it allegedly supports the OP's religious beliefs about Bible-based young-earth creationism.

gcthomas
October 30th, 2015, 02:16 PM
When a prediction is made and it is shown true, it lends credibility to the explanation presented that led to the prediction. Thus when a model says free oxygen should not be found, that counts against it, which is why the evolutionists are rethinking their ideas.

Of course, we will have to wait on closer examination of the comet to find out whether Dr Brown's prediction is successful.

However, a prediction is different from a means of falsification. That a prediction does not bear out is not terminal to a theory.

And if there is O-18 the as he and all planetary scientists believe, how does that advance his theory?

Measurements are only useful in supporting specific hypotheses if they have different predictions from the mainstream theories.

(And where do you get the idea that free oxygen wasn't expected at all by the scientists? Can't you read your own OP links?)

gcthomas
October 30th, 2015, 02:17 PM
Your desperation aside, do you have an answer to the question?

Why can molecular oxygen not be formed from Oxygen-18?

You tell me. :carryon:

Derf
October 30th, 2015, 05:00 PM
Your desperation aside, do you have an answer to the question?

Why can molecular oxygen not be formed from Oxygen-18?

I probably shouldn't step in on such a lovers' quarrel, but I think I can answer the question with some succinctness.

Molecular oxygen means oxygen by itself in a molecule. And from the context of the 2nd link, it is apparent they are talking about molecules with 2 oxygen atoms, not 3.

Oxygen-18 can form molecules. And they would reasonably be called "molecular oxygen". If such were found in some measure of abundance, it would validate Walt's prediction, perhaps.

But the presence of molecular oxygen found on the comet is not in any way related to Walt's prediction, as he specifically stated that "water in and near thick salt deposits is rich in 18O." (emphasis mine).

So, since Walt was looking for water with 18O, and ESA found O2, which is specifically NOT in water, they aren't talking about the same category of thing.

Jose Fly
October 30th, 2015, 05:12 PM
Time to close the thread. :chuckle:

Stripe
October 30th, 2015, 06:16 PM
I probably shouldn't step in on such a lovers' quarrel, but I think I can answer the question with some succinctness.

Molecular oxygen means oxygen by itself in a molecule. And from the context of the 2nd link, it is apparent they are talking about molecules with 2 oxygen atoms, not 3.

Oxygen-18 can form molecules. And they would reasonably be called "molecular oxygen". If such were found in some measure of abundance, it would validate Walt's prediction, perhaps.

But the presence of molecular oxygen found on the comet is not in any way related to Walt's prediction, as he specifically stated that "water in and near thick salt deposits is rich in 18O." (emphasis mine).

So, since Walt was looking for water with 18O, and ESA found O2, which is specifically NOT in water, they aren't talking about the same category of thing.

Sounds about right.

However, it has been made clear that the prediction has not been confirmed.

chair
October 31st, 2015, 10:56 AM
Well done. :up:

It's about time for Stripe to lock the thread, isn't it? :chuckle:

He could admit an error.

gcthomas
October 31st, 2015, 11:01 AM
He could admit an error.

Never. The most you'll get is a childish insult and the thread locked.

:chuckle:

Interplanner
October 31st, 2015, 12:57 PM
The search for truth does not hinge on one rarified find. To do so would be the same Lyell-Darwin mistake of making too much of a declaration based on too small of a basis. That's why I made the post today on Creation-Evolution.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94434&page=907

ok doser
October 31st, 2015, 01:21 PM
allow me to make a prediction

Jose Fly will never post again on tol

would you accept that the evidence that he has been banned validates (or supports) my statement, based on the definition of "validate"?


val·i·date

demonstrate or support the truth or value of.

Stripe
October 31st, 2015, 02:01 PM
Feel free to point out the error I've made. I've been good enough to correct gcthomas. :up:

chair
October 31st, 2015, 02:57 PM
PREDICTION 46: Comets will be found to be rich in Oxygen-18.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity4.html#wp9547089

Scientists shocked by molecular oxygen on comet.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/First_detection_of_molecular_oxygen_at_a_comet

The error is here. And in the title.

The find in the comets (molecular oxygen) doesn't have anything to do with them being "rich in Oxygen 18".

It is an error. And you should admit it.

Strange as it may seem, you will actually gain credibility if you admit your error.

Sealeaf
October 31st, 2015, 06:45 PM
The alcohol and sugar thing was not just "click bait", it was actually found. What it means is anyone quess.

Stripe
November 1st, 2015, 01:33 AM
The error is here. And in the title.

The find in the comets (molecular oxygen) doesn't have anything to do with them being "rich in Oxygen 18".

It is an error. And you should admit it.

Strange as it may seem, you will actually gain credibility if you admit your error.I've already "admitted" everything you're calling an "error" and well before you trolls appeared. :troll:

This thread is about something and the issues you are raising have already been thoroughly dealt with.

Look at me: I'm so ticked off I'm using the British spelling.

Get with the program. :up: Comets have oxygen, a discovery that has thrown the evolutionary story of the origin of the solar system into turmoil, while the Hydroplate theory provides a simple pathway toward its presence.


The alcohol and sugar thing was not just "click bait", it was actually found. What it means is anyone quess.

Or it's not a guess at all, but based on a substantive theory chock-full of predictions set out, validated or successful.

chair
November 1st, 2015, 01:54 AM
I've already "admitted" everything you're calling an "error"


No, you haven't. As evidence, I present the following:


Comets have oxygen, a discovery that has thrown the evolutionary story of the origin of the solar system into turmoil, while the Hydroplate theory provides a simple pathway toward its presence.

Oxygen 18 and Oxygen are not the same thing.

I won't put any more effort into trying to make you intellectually honest. It is something you have to do for yourself.

gcthomas
November 1st, 2015, 03:21 AM
Get with the program. :up: Comets have oxygen, a discovery that has thrown the evolutionary story of the origin of the solar system into turmoil, while the Hydroplate theory provides a simple pathway toward its presence.


Your lack of honesty continues to astonish me.

http://www.astrochem.org/docs/11_Sandford_etal-galley%20proof.pdf

Here is a paper from 2007 that summarises knowledge about oxygen in comets. It describes how O2 molecules would be expected to be incorporated in cometary ices from interstellar molecular clouds as the solar system formed. (So current observation of O2 expected)

It also points out that the O-18 isotope was measured in Halley's Comet in 1995. (Great post hoc prediction Walt! Guaranteed winner. :chuckle: )

So, given this previous art, what sort of turmoil do you expect from the discovery that the new observations are consistent with previous ones and with their theory of Comet formation?

Stripe
November 1st, 2015, 08:26 AM
I won't put any more effort into trying to make you intellectually honest.
OK, bye. :wave2:


Your lack of honesty continues to astonish me.While your hyperbole is just plain boring. :yawn:


Here is a paper from 2007 that summarises knowledge about oxygen in comets. It describes how O2 molecules would be expected to be incorporated in cometary ices from interstellar molecular clouds as the solar system formed. (So current observation of O2 expected) And yet the researchers say ideas of the formation of the entire solar system might need to be changed in light of this latest discovery. :think:

That they found something and recorded it doesn't make me dishonest. And it's completely useless to point out that they have found oxygen. Of course they have. The point is: How did it get there?


It also points out that the O-18 isotope was measured in Halley's Comet in 1995. (Great post hoc prediction Walt! Guaranteed winner. :chuckle: ) Of course, you have no idea when Dr Brown made the prediction. :rolleyes:

chair
November 1st, 2015, 08:40 AM
OK, bye. :wave2:

You really are pathetic.
Have a nice day.

Stripe
November 1st, 2015, 09:44 AM
You really are pathetic.

You really are a troll. :troll:

gcthomas
November 1st, 2015, 10:42 AM
The point is: How did it get there?

From the molecular cloud that supplied the rest of the material. Molecular oxygen has been seen in the giant molecular clouds, don't you know?



Of course, you have no idea when Dr Brown made the prediction. :rolleyes:

He started circulating his ideas in the late 1980s, while the scientists had planned the oxygen isotope instruments for the Halley mission in the late 1970s.

Stripe
November 1st, 2015, 12:36 PM
From the molecular cloud that supplied the rest of the material.

Asserting the existence of physical entities without evidence is not at all convincing. Moreover, oxygen does not last that long.

gcthomas
November 1st, 2015, 01:38 PM
Asserting the existence of physical entities without evidence is not at all convincing. Moreover, oxygen does not last that long.

Some a molecular cloud is the putative origin of the early solar nebula, and molecular clouds have been observed to have O2 now, then your assertions that O2 can't last long enough is just an assertion.

You said that the theory is in turmoil - quite obviously the new observations will fit in just fine with some small adjustments to the specific starting conditions (O2 lasts fine in very cold and chemically stable comets; it is the creation of it in the first place that is more unusual. It needs a slightly warmer than expected molecular cloud.)

Walt did not predict the O2, so anything you claim now is post hoc, while I gave you an old paper with it discussed.

No turmoil on my side, just panic and misdirection from you, as usual.

Stripe
November 1st, 2015, 01:53 PM
Some a molecular cloud is the putative origin of the early solar nebula.Inventing a physical entity for evidence isn't convincing, no matter how many times you do it.


Molecular clouds have been observed to have O2 now, then your assertions that O2 can't last long enough is just an assertion.So because there is thought to be molecular oxygen in space, it must have been there for billions of years? Sorry, asserting the truth of what you want to believe is not evidence.

And you're missing the point as usual: This discovery has thrown doubt on the evolutionary model of the solar system's formation.


You said that the theory is in turmoil.Nope. That would be the evolutionists who ran these tests.

You lose all credibility when you cannot even properly attribute ideas.


The new observations will fit in just fine with some small adjustments to the specific starting conditions.I see you have faith. :rolleyes:


O2 lasts fine in very cold and chemically stable comets.There is no such thing as a "stable" comet. They are ephemeral entities, especially on the scales of time you need to believe in.


It is the creation of it in the first place that is more unusual. It needs a slightly warmer than expected molecular cloud.)
Or it could just come from Earth. :idunno:


Walt did not predict the O2, so anything you claim now is post hoc, while I gave you an old paper with it discussed.
Well, no. You have not established any of this. You still do not even know when Dr Brown made the prediction, while you shifted the goalposts with regard to when he would have to have made the prediction by.


No turmoil on my side, just panic and misdirection from you, as usual.

:darwinsm:

You're still trying to regain your composure after your dictionary gaffe. :chuckle:

gcthomas
November 1st, 2015, 02:28 PM
OK. You can't tell me when the prediction was made. You can't show that Walt made a prediction about O2 at all. This whole thread seems to have been intended to bolster Walt's book sales, but you have had to make up the link since the story is unrelated to anything Walt has written.

So, not a threat to physics, no support to Walt's magical imaginings.

So no change here then. :carryon:

Stripe
November 1st, 2015, 02:40 PM
OK. You can't tell me when the prediction was made.That's right. I can't find when the prediction was made. If I do, I'll let you know.

However, the problem is from your end. You declared the prediction to have been made post hoc when you had no evidence to believe so. You are solely determined to put in a bad light everything that does not bow to your precious evolutionism. You are never interested in science.

If you were, the success of Dr Brown's work would intrigue you. Instead, you know nothing about it.


You can't show that Walt made a prediction about O2 at all. This whole thread seems to have been intended to bolster Walt's book sales, but you have had to make up the link since the story is unrelated to anything Walt has written. So, not a threat to physics, no support to Walt's magical imaginings. So no change here then. :carryon:

Fluff and nonsense. There is a vast ocean of ideas we could explore. You'd probably be able to contribute to the advancement of our understanding. However, you're not interested when there is even a hint of threat to your precious religion.

Get with the program. Learn to have a discussion. :up:

dialm
November 2nd, 2015, 11:58 PM
Do you think there is any Satanic activity on these O2 comets? Or are there only 'good' Angels flying them?

dialm
November 3rd, 2015, 12:00 AM
Wait. I'm sorry. How presumptuous of me. Maybe Lucifer is a goodie.

Stripe
November 4th, 2015, 08:49 AM
Additions to the online version of the book in response to the latest news:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets5.html
Comet 67P’s atmosphere also contained molecular oxygen. Scientists were stunned; O2 should not have been there, because it readily breaks apart and reacts with other chemicals to form compounds such as water, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide; when it reacts with itself, it forms ozone (O3). No ozone was on 67P. Molecular oxygen is what we breathe on Earth and is relatively rare except on Earth.
Earth’s surface waters are saturated with dissolved molecular oxygen.
The amount of O2 in 67P’s atmosphere was strongly correlated with the amount of water vapor in the comet’s atmosphere; the more water vapor that escaped from inside the comet as it warmed during the comet’s daytime and as it approached the sun, the more O2 entered 67P’s atmosphere. Therefore, molecular oxygen was dissolved in the water ice when the comet formed.
O2 was incorporated into the nucleus during the comet’s formation. Current Solar System formation models do not predict conditions that would allow this to occur
This explains why O2 did not have a chance to combine with hydrogen, carbon, or all 67P’s complex organic compounds listed in [the table on the Web site] to form water, carbon dioxide, or carbon monoxide.
If comets formed billions of years ago, how could that O2 remain locked up in ice for all that time — through the formation of the solar system and comets, after innumerable impacts (from rocks to photons), and after millions of passes by the Sun?
Kathrin Altwegg of the University of Bern, who coauthored this surprising report in the journal Nature admitted: “We never thought that oxygen could ‘survive’ for billions of years.”
If comets brought the chemicals for life to Earth, why didn’t the O2 gobble up those chemicals long before they reached Earth? We all know what O2 does to dead bodies.