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.
originally posted by: bjarneorn
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.
originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: Ross 54
Good questions. But I think that features resembling craters might actually be outgassing sites that got warm enough to sublimate very actively, leaving pits in the surface. They don't really look like typical impact craters to me.
Wallace talks about their use of words, made up words that are only theory (this is the world you live in , make believe one), is reinforced frequently in articles, they continue to say what has never been proven and is basically a hoax, because whether or not it maintains true, its just a possibility they offered up and have never proved.
originally posted by: largo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Let's just say that compaction of the material retained ain't gonna happen. Just not enough stuff to compress itself into a form other than has aggregated.
And this, I'm sure, is the key to why this object has such low density. It's clearly the primordial "fluff" of dust and ices that has accreted together. A far cry from the EU vision of solid rocky chunks being expelled by gigantic electric discharges.
originally posted by: Unity_99
What an odd title for a thread. Thunderbolts and electric universe theorists are following this and not really surprised at the findings.
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
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
originally posted by: Unity_99
The surface shows no or almost no ice and its not what they expected from conventional theories, yet this thread is trying to maintain the opposite.
originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
If EU proponents get a theory wrong I think we have to let it slide.
It would be hasty to toss the entire Electric Universe theory aside based upon
ice vs rock. Academia has been known to get a theory wrong here and there.
Even if the big picture is essentially right.
originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
If EU proponents get a theory wrong I think we have to let it slide.
It would be hasty to toss the entire Electric Universe theory aside based upon
ice vs rock. Academia has been known to get a theory wrong here and there.
Even if the big picture is essentially right.
originally posted by: MortlitantiFMMJ
You really should be clearer in your op. EU to a lot of people means European Union
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.