It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will Philae Explode When It Reaches Comet Chury?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
The Philae probe is set to touch down on comet Chury sometime in November. Presently, Chury is showing signs of becoming active, even though it is more than 640 million kilometers from the Sun.

I'm reserving this post for gloating should the probe short out, explode, or otherwise fail to return good data because of electrical interference on the comet.

That said, the probe is primarily made out of carbon fiber, which is not very conductive, so it may actually make it to the surface without getting lightning bolted to pieces. Of course, I'm praying it blows up in a gigantic 4th of July fireworks explosion because that would pretty much end all debate about the electrical nature of comets.





posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Don't know myself, guess we will have to wait and see what happens. Wouldn't that probe cause a change in the orbit of the comet?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

I doubt it will cause any noticeable change in orbit unless there is an absolutely massive electrical discharge to the probe. If it lands successfully, it will be like a fly landing on a school bus.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist




I'm praying it blows up in a gigantic 4th of July fireworks explosion because that would pretty much end all debate about the electrical nature of comets.

Really ?
It wont explode and I'm hoping for a successful landing for the science and knowledge it will provide , hoping a mission fails just to bolster your misguided belief is quite sad.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Will you come back to admit it if you are wrong?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
My guess is that there will be little to no reactions observed. Things I think that should be taken into consideration are; conductivity, surface area, mass, approach velocity and any potential electrical differential. A probe of low conductivity, surface area and mass and with a low approach velocity equates to a potentially low reaction. The opposite of this would be the Deep Impact mission on comet Temple 1.

I hope that they successfully land on this comet and some reaction is observed. After all, more data is desperately needed in this field.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Wait.. If electrical whammy is what takes out the probe? Electricity moves in nano seconds and the degree involved would presumably be enormous by our scales. So...would we even know for sure what happened or would there just be a moment where telemetry was good to go then.....it wasn't?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
My guess is that there will be little to no reactions observed. Things I think that should be taken into consideration are; conductivity, surface area, mass, approach velocity and any potential electrical differential. A probe of low conductivity, surface area and mass and with a low approach velocity equates to a potentially low reaction. The opposite of this would be the Deep Impact mission on comet Temple 1.

I hope that they successfully land on this comet and some reaction is observed. After all, more data is desperately needed in this field.


I agree, this is the most probable outcome, but I can always dream. While we do need more data, the probe exploding from a lightning bolt would do more to promote the correct theory of cosmology than any data it could possibly accumulate over its lifespan.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: InvisibleOwl
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Will you come back to admit it if you are wrong?


Nope.

Most electric universe or electric comet proponets will instead come back and try to explain why something didn't happen, but that they are still right.

All you have to do is go back and look at all the threads on ISON.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

I can only speak for myself.

I don't know what others on here may or may not have predicted, but I'm not them.

What I can guarantee is that no matter what may happen to that probe, the results of this mission will not conform to the theory that a comet is a melting snowball. I will be back to defend that point vigorously.

Personally, I don't know how anyone can watch the Electric Comet documentary and still walk away thinking a comet is a melting snowball.

edit on 6/4/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: eriktheawful

I can only speak for myself.

I don't know what others on here may or may not have predicted, but I'm not them.

What I can guarantee is that no matter what may happen to that probe, the results of this mission will not conform to the theory that a comet is a melting snowball. I will be back to defend that point vigorously.

Personally, I don't know how anyone can watch the Electric Comet documentary and still walk away thinking a comet is a melting snowball.


See? He's already started, and the probe has not even landed yet.

Sure hope your debate on it goes better for you than when you participated in this thread here.

By the way: it's "Icy Conglomerate". Not a dirty snowball.

Good luck with that.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: eriktheawful



I can only speak for myself.



I don't know what others on here may or may not have predicted, but I'm not them.



What I can guarantee is that no matter what may happen to that probe, the results of this mission will not conform to the theory that a comet is a melting snowball. I will be back to defend that point vigorously.



Personally, I don't know how anyone can watch the Electric Comet documentary and still walk away thinking a comet is a melting snowball.


When you are completely disingenuous with the mainstream ideas how can anyone take you seriously? You have already set yourself up for win / win. You won't make a prediction on what will you happen in such a way you can be proved wrong.

Something happens .. you are right. Nothing happens, you are right and you called it that conductivity would be too low.

Pretty disgusting.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

I'm reserving this post for gloating should the probe short out, explode, or otherwise fail to return good data because of electrical interference on the comet.




So exactly how would you prove that, sorry I already know you electric comet/universe guys would just assume that.

Even though there could be a 1001 other reasons!!!!!



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Exactly, he has set up a situation where he is right no matter what. ANY failure .. he is right. NO FAILURE .. he set that up so he is still right.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: wmd_2008

Exactly, he has set up a situation where he is right no matter what. ANY failure .. he is right. NO FAILURE .. he set that up so he is still right.


That's not true.

If the probe lands successfully and we find water jets shooting out of rocky holes, I'll be proven wrong.

Of course, that's not going to happen.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Ya know, here's something I've never quite understood about the absurd dirty snowball model.

If mainstream astrophysicists actually thought this model was correct, why not simply release water into space and see what happens to it? Why not shoot up a rocket with a payload of water and observe the effects?

According to mainstream theory, it should instantly be photodissassociated and turned into H OH ions.

Of course, that's a total absurdity that would never actually happen in a controlled experiment. They've never tried it or even proposed it because they all subconsciously know its a total joke of a theory.

No experiment has ever produced the disassociation rates assumed by comet models.




Oh by the way, if your curious what actually happens when water is sprayed into space:


When the astronauts take a leak while on a mission and expel the result into space, it boils violently. The vapor then passes immediately into the solid state (a process known as desublimation), and you end up with a cloud of very fine crystals of frozen urine.


It doesn't instantly turn into H OH radicals and begin emitting x-ray radiation, like comet models suggest.


edit on 6/5/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Wait.. If electrical whammy is what takes out the probe? Electricity moves in nano seconds and the degree involved would presumably be enormous by our scales. So...would we even know for sure what happened or would there just be a moment where telemetry was good to go then.....it wasn't?
Perhaps this is what happened to Russia’s Mars probes. Seems that one of the failed probes took an image of a streak of light right before it was lost or presumably went dead.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Most electric universe or electric comet proponets will instead come back and try to explain why something didn't happen, but that they are still right.
This is called learning. One makes a prediction and compares the results then attempts to understand what happened. I’m not sure about the “I am still right” claim so perhaps this is just your opinion or a local phenomena. I feel that the important thing is to focus on learning.

I cannot speak for the electric Universe or electric comet proponents but I can tell you that evidence gathered over the last 25 years disputes the dirty snowball theory yet you don’t hear anyone recanting this obviously wrong and antiquated theory.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Devino

Seriously. Go back and look at all the ISON threads.

Each prediction made by the EU crowd was wrong. Each prediction failed.

Yet each time the EU crowd would simply ignore those failed predictions (not trying to come up with a solution of why that prediction failed), and simply continued to make other predictions.....

Which also failed.

As you say: you can learn from things that failed. There will still be important data there.

But, the EU crowd does not do that . Instead, the ignore it, and move on to another prediction, another comet, etc, etc.

You can read it yourself right here on ATS, just search for ISON threads, and Elenin threads, an just about any other big news comet threads here on ATS.

When this probe lands and no big lightning bolt blows it up....when it returns data.....the EU crowd will scream cover up and conspiracy.

It never fails to happen with each big news comet.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Seriously. Go back and look at all the ISON threads.
You can read it yourself right here on ATS, just search for ISON threads, and Elenin threads, an just about any other big news comet threads here on ATS.
That would make this a local phenomena then at least. I don’t have the time to read all the comments from closed minded people that don’t know what they’re talking about, and that goes for both side of this debate.

I have read some claims made by EU theorists that I disagree with yet I have read many more that appear to be spot on. I think of it as learning in progress.

The thing that gets me is the theory claimed by mainstream science that comets are dirty snowballs originating from the outer solar system. Remember that one? So where is the snow? Where is the ice or water? Where is the evidence of outer solar system origination?

a reply to: eriktheawful

By the way: it's "Icy Conglomerate". Not a dirty snowball.
Actually it is more like an asteroid with a comma and sometimes a tail of dust, gas and ions. The evidence that I have read over the years pertaining to comets seem to define a comet by its orbital characteristics and whether it has a comma/tail or not. Not the composition of the object itself or where it originated from.

Wild 2 samples. www.newscientist.com...

Samples of Comet Wild 2 suggest it is made of rocky material, like an asteroid, rather than the fluffy dust expected of a comet.

Early on, scientists found surprising evidence that Wild 2 contained some material from the inner solar system…

Now, scientists have been surprised again as further study suggests Wild 2 is made mostly of material from the inner solar system, and that the object has a composition more like that of an asteroid than what was expected of a comet.
This does not appear to be a dirty snowball, or icy dirtball/”conglomerate”, originating from the outer solar system. When will this antiquated definition of a comet be revised?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join