Deathblow to Electric Comet Theory - BBC - Rosetta's 10-billion-tonne comet

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 03:51 AM
link   
So we have been hearing from certain people how when Rosetta is examined everything we thought we knew would be wrong.

EU proponents would have us believe that Rosetta is a big hunk of rock, just like an asteroid, no different. So what have we found? Does the data match expectations?

"The mass is in the realms of what was expected," says European Space Agency (Esa) project scientist Matt Taylor.


That's odd, I keep hearing about how we will be so surprised, and it won't be at all what we thought. Here's a question, if an asteroid lands in the ocean what happens? Do we have asteroids floating around? Here's what happens to Rosetta ...


If you could put the object in an ocean, it would float.


Strike 2.

So they were not surprised?

At this stage, it simply constrains what we believe it is made from


Most asteroids are between 2-7 g/cm3. Rosetta is 0.3g/cm3.

Strike 3.

Of course this is not the end, more data will come in soon. The slow death known as Rosetta awaits the EU people.

www.bbc.com...

edit on 23-8-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

ok then....glad that has been cleared up



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

ok then....glad that has been cleared up

Any thoughts?



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 04:21 AM
link   
I don't think I'm quite 100% clear on the angle of your op?

The Rosetta comet still needs much more testing before being able to confirm or deny anything. On a slightly off-topic nature, you will need a mighty big puddle to see if it floats, look how massive this thing is. This image really put Rosetta's scale in my mind that was vastly bigger than my minds eye had seen.
It's gargantuan!


Edit. Oh.. EU, those electric universe people.... Mum tells me to say nothing about them, so I'll be grabbing my popcorn instead
edit on 23-8-2014 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm not fully conversant with the whole EU thing, however, I note a sense of triumph in your OP, I could be wrong.

Personally I'd say it's somewhat naive to rule out any possibility of an EU theory based on one fairly small observation.

The generation of electrical energy can and does occur in some strange places indeed.

Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

From the source



“It’s remarkable that electric and magnetic fields within just a few meters (yards) of the lunar surface can cause the turbulence we see thousands of kilometers away,” says Poppe. Other moons and asteroids in the solar system should have this turbulent layer over their day sides as well, according to the team.
“Discovering more about this layer will enhance our understanding of the Moon and potentially other bodies because it allows information about conditions very near the surface to propagate to great distances, so a spacecraft will gain the ability to virtually explore close to these objects when it’s actually far away,” said Halekas.


Seems to me main stream science is just getting it's head around the concept.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

ok then....glad that has been cleared up

Any thoughts?



not really at this stage...any chance you could elaborate a bit



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

ok then....glad that has been cleared up

Any thoughts?



not really at this stage...any chance you could elaborate a bit


EU proponents say comets are simply big hunks of rock EXACTLY like an asteroid. Standard theorists say they are porous, and have water and carbon dioxide in the form of ice inside their core.

The mass for this comet is EXACTLY as standard model would predict, and not at all what EU model predicts.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm not fully conversant with the whole EU thing, however, I note a sense of triumph in your OP, I could be wrong.

Personally I'd say it's somewhat naive to rule out any possibility of an EU theory based on one fairly small observation.

The generation of electrical energy can and does occur in some strange places indeed.

Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

From the source



“It’s remarkable that electric and magnetic fields within just a few meters (yards) of the lunar surface can cause the turbulence we see thousands of kilometers away,” says Poppe. Other moons and asteroids in the solar system should have this turbulent layer over their day sides as well, according to the team.
“Discovering more about this layer will enhance our understanding of the Moon and potentially other bodies because it allows information about conditions very near the surface to propagate to great distances, so a spacecraft will gain the ability to virtually explore close to these objects when it’s actually far away,” said Halekas.


Seems to me main stream science is just getting it's head around the concept.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

It's a blow. I did not say it was the finish.

The mass does not at all follow EU predictions, and follows EXACTLY what the standard model predicts. Explain that.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Qumulys
I don't think I'm quite 100% clear on the angle of your op?

The Rosetta comet still needs much more testing before being able to confirm or deny anything. On a slightly off-topic nature, you will need a mighty big puddle to see if it floats, look how massive this thing is. This image really put Rosetta's scale in my mind that was vastly bigger than my minds eye had seen.
It's gargantuan!


Edit. Oh.. EU, those electric universe people.... Mum tells me to say nothing about them, so I'll be grabbing my popcorn instead

We can tell it floats by it's size and mass. As I said, this is a blow, not the finish.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 04:40 AM
link   
You really should be clearer in your op. EU to a lot of people means European Union, with the confusion even more compounded when its an ESA project.

As a sidenote, its amazing that we can send probes on a 10 year chases through space to catch a comet



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

well it has taken a long time for people to get their heads around life existing elsewhere in the universe/multiverse.... EU is a fairly new theory give it time...who knows



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The standard model is not definitive. And never has been. Gravity, just sayin.

I would refer you to the link in my previous post. As far as I can see, any suggestion that a refined EU theory not having the capacity to sit within a standard model is nothing short of un-scientific.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Qumulys

it wouldn't look that big though, it would disseminate somewhat in the atmosphere, right ?



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 05:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: MortlitantiFMMJ
You really should be clearer in your op. EU to a lot of people means European Union, with the confusion even more compounded when its an ESA project.

As a sidenote, its amazing that we can send probes on a 10 year chases through space to catch a comet

Thank you, I would not want to confuse my brothers across the Pond. Altered! And yes it is. I wish I would live to see the days we ventured out ourselves.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 05:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The standard model is not definitive. And never has been. Gravity, just sayin.

I would refer you to the link in my previous post. As far as I can see, any suggestion that a refined EU theory not having the capacity to sit within a standard model is nothing short of un-scientific.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell


Define definitive. Is it complete and 100% correct? Nope. EU can not stand within the standard model. They have absolutely irreconcilable differences.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Perhaps somewhat ironically, the unrelated thread started just before this one was by a user named ElectricUniverse, just noticed that, thought I'd share... synchronicity and all..



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 05:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Elijah23
Perhaps somewhat ironically, the unrelated thread started just before this one was by a user named ElectricUniverse, just noticed that, thought I'd share... synchronicity and all..

There are more than a few believers here.

That is what prompted me to make the thread, there insistence Rosetta will blow standard model believers minds and it will not be anything at all what they expect.

One of them actually said if his prediction came true about the lander not landing right then standard model is dead. If he was wrong then that just means there was lots of dust and it's not proof of anything.

That's what we deal with.
edit on 23-8-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
EU proponents would have us believe that Rosetta is a big hunk of rock, just like an asteroid, no different.

Isn't Rosetta the probe and the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko?



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

You are correct! I was rushing to get the thread done before work got busy, tis what I get.

ETA: DOH! Pesky 4 hour limit to edit.
edit on 23-8-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The mass for this comet is EXACTLY as standard model would predict, and not at all what EU model predicts.


Really ... that sounds like a bit naive to me.

You have no idea, what the mass of this object is. It's an estimated "guess", based on size and projectory ... but to be able to calculate the mass, of any object. You need it's weight, and the acceleration. All of which, are estimates from observation ... and very very very far, from being accurate. Although, they're usually accurate enough.

Now, saying this object is 0.3g/cm3 does not sound quite right to me. If it was this light, I have a hard time seeing how it would even "stick together" ... after all, even ice is 0.9g/cm3. This object is lighter than ice.

Sorry bud, this does sound like whatever parameters were used to calculate this stuff ... is way out in error land.

So, I say ... stay tuned for updates.
edit on 23/8/2014 by bjarneorn because: Meant ice, not air.






top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join