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

By the way, here are real up close findings on comets and they fully supported what EU theorists predicted and were completely at odds with conventional theories.


1/6 Comets - Not What We Expected

This one may or may not fit the average comet composition. In a huge or infinite universe, do you think there is only one kind of thing?

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.

Utterly meaningless. Projectory?

They're estimating the mass of the object using measurements of its gravitational pull on the probe. Knowing the volume of the object and having estimated the mass, they can draw conclusions about the density and porosity.

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.

A few notes from video.

---And the temp hotter than the scientists thought as well.

---It displays an electrically gouged surface....

Worth posting again:


Rosetta Mission Findings: No Room for Dirty Snowballs | Space News

Wallace Thornhill does his own take on this comet in the video, and its meeting expectations apparently.

ETA: 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.

Then Wallace says, they select facts to match their theories and ignore the rest, which is NOT science.

A picture I've resized from the video:

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.

Yes, outgassing is a possible explanation for the 'craters'. A single vent, confined in area, with the force of the gasses expanding equally in all directions might leave a circular pit. I'd expect it to have a somewhat conical floor, point facing downward. This is not apparent in the large circular feature to which I referred. Its floor seems quite flat.It has appeared in several of the Rosetta images, taken from different angles, directions, and lighting conditions.
I'm not aware of any circular features being identified as sources of gas venting, in any of the other comets that have been photographed at close range. Gas venting generally seems to be diffused randomly over the surfaces of these bodies.
Once there has been time to closely examine the surface of the object, it will probably be possible to determine which features, if any, are due to impacts, and which to outgassing.

a reply to: Unity_99

More like "No Room For Solid Rock" theory, given the comet's remarkably small mass and density.

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.

This is very true concerning the EU theory. Lot's of repeating of words, and hand-waving.

By the way, the "dirty snowball" model includes the dark, non-icy surface. Ices on the surface have sublimated with repeated perihelion passages, and were also subjected to solar radiation and space weathering. This creates a dark, non-icy crust, called the mantle: www2.ess.ucla.edu...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Mass can EASILY be determined after the probe arrives as it will be orbiting the comet/asteroid. The speed and distance of the object circling the centerpoint of mass gives the total mass present. Admittedly the object is a strange configuration which will give some anomalous results on a close orbit. Somewhat similar to the 'mascons' on our moon and those satellites we had orbiting it.

I did a computation (results are lost but easily replicated on a conventional calculator) concerning the fragility of this object and it's rotation rate. The escape velocity and rotationally imposed maximum speed (at either end of the 'dumbbell', not the equator) is about a two to one ratio favoring the retention of surface material.

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. The form itself with it's girdle between the principal masses is not necessarily odd. I do find it strange that they would have not embedded themselves within each other. It had to be an exceedingly gentle collision.

Whether the 'parking' of these two apparently independent pieces was an action of something other than a random occurrence can lead to some speculation. My take is that, if artificial, it happened some time ago. The uniformity of the surface imperfections look contemporaneous.

Incidentally, it appears that the photos have a LOT OF SMUDGE. This is the most important conspiratorial artifact. To prove this to yourself, download the images and compare the regions that are entirely featureless to the surrounding areas. Reminds me of the Moon and Mars images which are also doctored to fit someone's agenda.

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.

a reply to: wildespace

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.

Too dense for water or ice, or solid rock. I'm an EUer, but have some different ideas, and this object will (well, I hope it will!) turn out to be a mesoporous, or macroporous silicon structure with a modified (by plasma) surface.

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.

How are they not surprised when they have been saying Comets are simply Asteroids, there is no difference?

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

I don't know if it has taken that long. The idea of alien life has been pretty much a staple in the minds of pop culture for the past century now.

Pop culture often mirrors peoples thoughts, so considering the pop culture ideas of aliens in the 1960s Star Trek, and the 1930s Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers (and the like), and even before that with the 1897 novel The War of the Worlds and Georges Méliès 1902 film A trip to the Moon, I think people have long ago considered the idea that thee might be other life out there.

Even 200+ years ago it was popular idea among some of the more educated people who, knowing that stars were suns/the sun was just a star, theorized that if the stars are suns, then other beings may inhabit planets around them.

People (even the common person) had already wrapped their minds around the possibility of life elsewhere a long time ago.

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.

It's exactly what they expected. It's not what you expect because you do not understand the theories, and even though you have been told over and over, you refuse to listen.

In reply to the EU video.

At 2 min in he says comets are simply remains of planetary bodies. So the density should be the same. The fact is the density is incredibly low, and would float. It's about 1/3 the density of water. This fits Mainstream perfect and is a HUGE SURPRISE for EU theorists.

+1 Mainstream.

At 6:45 he says this comet is not a conglomerate of ice and dust. He says it's a chunk of a planet that has been roasted black. Again, this is easily determined by mass. A small mass is a conglomerate, a larger mass a planetary chunk. What do we have? A SMALL mass that fits a conglomerate and absolutely can NOT be a planetary chunk roasted black.

+2 Mainstream

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The fact the EU people don't want to touch this with a 10ft pole and have avoided this like the plague for the most part is enough of an indicator that this is a huge blow to them.

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.

I would maybe agree, except that this truly does kill the EU theory. If things are not electric driven, then EU is wrong. Now as I said this one reading is not enough to kill it, but it's a HUGE blow. In the coming months we will get more data, which very well may be enough to finish EU for good. Expect them to ignore it though.

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.

Yes, the EU theory is still young, and ice vs rock we will hopefully find out from the Roseeta mission. However, the electrical properties of comets are known and accepted by standard astrophysicists. They know the coma is due to an electrical field causing ionisation of the elements in the coma, they know the 'tail' is a flux tube, with a magnetic field, and the contents of the flux tube are ionised and create a current path, which creates the magnetic filed. Electric and magnetic fields are known to exist at huge scales around quasars, magnetars, etc, and the electric field of the Sun has been worked out to be 750 v/M.
If the comets were blasted off the surface of some other body, it is possible that after a long time in space, and getting close to the sun where the e;lextric field is much stronger, that once solid rock may now have had most of its electrons and ions removed, and be the equivalent of a cinder, light and porous.
My own model is that these objects are formed within solar flux tubes from the primal silicon found in space, and because it is in zero G, will be full of pores, like the middle of a Malteser, and the surface has been modified by repeated strong electrical and magnetic forces. Perhaps an irregular Coulomb crystal might describe it.
Nobody can say that electricity and magnetism is not involved in astrophysics or the planetary sciences, it is known and accepted, is is just the degree to which they are important, and I believe they trump the effects of gravity by many orders of magnitude.
Antway, this is all a very interesting mission regardless of who turns out to be nearer the truth, and an impressive achievment by the scientists and engineers involved.

a reply to: GaryN

And already people are jumping ship and changing goal posts, and using mainstream theories to do so!

originally posted by: MortlitantiFMMJ
You really should be clearer in your op. EU to a lot of people means European Union

Not on this forum!

I see that the large 'crater' in the 'head' lobe of the comet has been selected as one of five prospective landing sites (landing site B) for the Rosetta probe Philae lander. This means that it will receive very close scrutiny over the nest couple of weeks. Perhaps this will resolve the question of whether or not the structure is an impact crater. ESA is now cautiously calling it 'crater-like'. Link, below, to photo of this feature.
www.esa.int...

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.

I study the EU theory frequently, and I was under the impression that both are possible in EU.

The comet could be solid (asteroid) or could be frozen ice (standard comet).

It is the substance of the comet's tail and how it is formed that allows for some comets to be solid and not ice, while others are ice in EU. This does not rule out comets that are ice, only that an asteroid can appear as a comet in the inner solar system because of the electron exchange between silicates on the solid mass' surface and the solar wind stream.

In EU comets can be either solid or ice and still produce a tail, in standard theory; comets must be ice to produce a tail.

Either way it is way too early for the "victory parade" presented in the OP.

God Bless,