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

Maybe I am making it too simplistic, but here are my thoughts.

In the standard theory all thing are based on Gravity. Gravity dictates mass, density, electromagnetism and composition.

In the EU theory, all things are based on Electromagnetism. Electromagnetism dictates mass, density, gravity and composition.

Using the "mass" as determined by "the gravitational pull" to calculate "composition and density" would produce Standard model evidence.

However, what if it is electromagnetism that overrules gravity?

If that is the case, then the "gravity" of an object would not be an accurate way of determining "composition and density" of an object.

Does EM generate gravity, or gravity generate EM?

That is the real debate between EU and Gravity models. By assuming one way or the other it can produce "accurate" findings for an individual agenda, no matter what it is.

God Bless,

originally posted by: ElohimJD

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,

No. The "ice comet" is standard model. EU theory claims electrical discharges rip material off planets to form comets and asteroids. Both are not possible in EU. The video posted earlier explains the EU position. It's wrong.

originally posted by: ElohimJD
Maybe I am making it too simplistic, but here are my thoughts.

In the standard theory all thing are based on Gravity. Gravity dictates mass, density, electromagnetism and composition.

In the EU theory, all things are based on Electromagnetism. Electromagnetism dictates mass, density, gravity and composition.

Using the "mass" as determined by "the gravitational pull" to calculate "composition and density" would produce Standard model evidence.

However, what if it is electromagnetism that overrules gravity?

If that is the case, then the "gravity" of an object would not be an accurate way of determining "composition and density" of an object.

Does EM generate gravity, or gravity generate EM?

That is the real debate between EU and Gravity models. By assuming one way or the other it can produce "accurate" findings for an individual agenda, no matter what it is.

God Bless,

So when the data proves you wrong simply refuse to accept the data. More or less what I expected.

originally posted by: ElohimJD
Maybe I am making it too simplistic, but here are my thoughts.

In the standard theory all thing are based on Gravity. Gravity dictates mass, density, electromagnetism and composition.

Rather, object's mass dictates its gravity and density. Electromagnetism is dictated by charged particles, and composition is dictated by which atoms and molecules the object is made of.

It's that kind of simplistic, all-sweeping view that the EU proponents employ: that the whole mainstream model is based on gravity only, making it incorrect as there is plenty of electricity and magnetism in the universe. In reality, electromagnetism and its effects are part of the mainstream model. The question is whether electricity does all those thing the EU theory claims, such as forming and powering stars, forming planets and comets / asteroids, creating craters and valleys on the planets' surfaces, and many other spectacular (but unproven) things.

Astronomers Surprised by Large Space Rock Less Dense Than Water
A newly analyzed Kuiper Belt object is posing a challenge to planet-formation theories

A planetary scientist has identified the largest-known solid object in the Solar System that could float in a bathtub. The rock-and-ice body, which circles well outside the orbits of the planets, is less dense than water — although a bathtub big enough to hold it would stretch from London to Frankfurt.

The body, dubbed 2002 UX25, lies in the Kuiper belt, a reservoir of dwarf planets, comets and smaller frozen bodies beyond the orbit of Neptune. The object's low density and size — it is 650 kilometers wide — seem to conflict with a leading model for the formation of large solid bodies in the Kuiper belt and throughout the Solar System.

If large bodies in the Kuiper belt were made by the merging of small ones, the densities of the small and big bodies should be related. But objects in the Kuiper belt with diameters of less than 350 km all seem to be less dense than water, whereas those with diameters greater than 800 km seem to be denser than water.

Density dispute
One possible explanation for the mismatch is that the smaller objects are more porous, whereas the stronger gravity of the bigger objects packs ice and rock more tightly, creating a denser structure. But for that scenario to hold true, medium-sized bodies — those with diameters of around 600 km — should have a density that is midway between the smaller and larger bodies.

That turns out not to be the case if 2002 UX25 — the first intermediate-size Kuiper belt object to have its density measured — is typical of the vast number of similarly sized objects in the belt. On the basis of measurements made with several space- and ground-based telescopes, the object has a density of 0.82 grams per cubic centimeter — 18% lower than that of water.

www.scientificamerican.com...

I was lazy, so just googled 'rocks in space lighter than water.

Definitely not enough to challenge the standard model, but it does raise some interesting questions.

a reply to: Millers

No it doesn't. It directly kills EU theory though. EU theory states that asteroids and comets are chunks of planets ripped apart by electrical discharges. They should all be solid rocks.

Standard model has plenty of explanations for how less dense bodies form. It's just a surprise to find one in this particular region, it doesn't mean the standard model is wrong only the application of it needs to be reworked. in fact this object is supposedly rock and ice, something EU theory says does not exist.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No it doesn't.

It doesn't what, raise questions? Then why are questions being raised? Maybe you should stop trying to be smarter then the people actually studying this stuff.

The Kuiper belt object 2002 UX25 has a density smaller than that of water ice. In fact, 2002 UX25 is the largest solid object in the solar system which could float in water. If you could find a big enough body of water to float it in. As I explained to the audience at the time, this is such a startling result that everyone should currently be gasping.

This answer begs an important question: WHAT IS GOING ON????

I can’t answer that for you. But I can give you options. First: perhaps 2002 UX25 is fluffy, after all. I find this extremely unlikely, not just because of the analogy with the asteroids but also because of what I learned early on in my snowball fight days: wet snow compacts easily. 2002 UX25 is large enough that it should have gotten warm during its formation. If its temperature raised any substantial amount, melting would have quickly destroyed porosity.

Second: perhaps 2002 UX25 is an anomaly. It is the only object with a measured density in this range. If it is not actually representative all bets are off. We’ll only know by finding more objects of this size and measuring their density.

The third possibility is the one that I find most intriguing: perhaps the large objects aren’t made up of the small objects. Then where did the large objects come from? I have no idea. OK, that’s not really true, I have too many ideas, none of which make much sense, but all of which would require some pretty major revisions to what we think we know about how to build bodies in the planetary systems.

And that’s where science gets fun. Theories that have been around for 50 years deserve respect, as they wouldn’t have survived 50 years if they didn’t explain a lot of what we see around us, but when they fail, when they require that snowballs magically grow stones inside of them when you stick them together, you might have a hint that you are onto something even more interesting than the giant snowball.

www.mikebrownsplanets.com...

I never heard EU proponents claim comets are not suppose to have any ice, just that they're not 'dirty snowballs'.
When you have astrophysicists seriously questioning standard coagulation theories, you should listen up.
Arrogance very rarely leads to new insights, curiosity does.

Are we now trying to reconcile the Electric Universe with the standard model, the same way some people try to reconcile evolution with creationism (or science with religion in general)?

The EU theory states quite categorically that comets are rocky bodies (electrically machined from the surface of planets), with no ice in them. Thus, comets should be more or less solid and have large density.

Rosetta's comet flies in the face of that theory, and the 2002 UX25, mentioned above, also does. Such objects could only be made of a mix of dust/rocks and frozen volatiles (ices) that stuck together due to gravity, leaving lots of voids inside.

originally posted by: Millers

It doesn't what, raise questions? Then why are questions being raised? Maybe you should stop trying to be smarter then the people actually studying this stuff.

The questions raised have nothing to do with the validity of the standard model. It's like saying a ship sailing suddenly sinks, so we now have to question everything we know about buoyancy. No, we don't. It means there was something else at work we previously did not know about, it doesn't mean we decide what we know about buoyancy is wrong. In this case the boat sunk because air bubbles changed the buoyancy. Nothing you have provided says the standard model is wrong, only that we have more to learn, which is something the scientists agree with.

The Kuiper belt object 2002 UX25 has a density smaller than that of water ice. In fact, 2002 UX25 is the largest solid object in the solar system which could float in water. If you could find a big enough body of water to float it in. As I explained to the audience at the time, this is such a startling result that everyone should currently be gasping.

This answer begs an important question: WHAT IS GOING ON????

I can’t answer that for you. But I can give you options. First: perhaps 2002 UX25 is fluffy, after all. I find this extremely unlikely, not just because of the analogy with the asteroids but also because of what I learned early on in my snowball fight days: wet snow compacts easily. 2002 UX25 is large enough that it should have gotten warm during its formation. If its temperature raised any substantial amount, melting would have quickly destroyed porosity.

Second: perhaps 2002 UX25 is an anomaly. It is the only object with a measured density in this range. If it is not actually representative all bets are off. We’ll only know by finding more objects of this size and measuring their density.

The third possibility is the one that I find most intriguing: perhaps the large objects aren’t made up of the small objects. Then where did the large objects come from? I have no idea. OK, that’s not really true, I have too many ideas, none of which make much sense, but all of which would require some pretty major revisions to what we think we know about how to build bodies in the planetary systems.

And that’s where science gets fun. Theories that have been around for 50 years deserve respect, as they wouldn’t have survived 50 years if they didn’t explain a lot of what we see around us, but when they fail, when they require that snowballs magically grow stones inside of them when you stick them together, you might have a hint that you are onto something even more interesting than the giant snowball.

www.mikebrownsplanets.com...

I never heard EU proponents claim comets are not suppose to have any ice, just that they're not 'dirty snowballs'.
When you have astrophysicists seriously questioning standard coagulation theories, you should listen up.
Arrogance very rarely leads to new insights, curiosity does.

Then you need to listen harder, I already sourced and quoted the EU theory stating they have no or near no ice, and are solid rock bodies ripped from planets. Your source talking about this large body with low density KILLS EU theory dead, it makes it 100% wrong, they say that doesn't exist.

Yes and guess what, he is STILL using the standard model, and just changing other factors. His models of how this could happen are ALL still based on standard models, nothing else. So I am listening up to what he is saying, and he agrees with me, what he is saying KILLS the EU theory completely dead if you accept he is right, maybe YOU should listen up?

a reply to: wildespace

The EU theory states quite categorically that comets are rocky bodies (electrically machined from the surface of planets), with no ice in them. Thus, comets should be more or less solid and have large density.

If Thornhill is correct, the OH (radicals) does not require water ice on, or in, the comet. Though it would be irrational to categorically exclude the possibility of ice, our (sic) probes have revealed scorched surfaces looking more like burnt rocks than dirty snowballs. They are, in fact, barely distinguishable from ice-free asteroids.

www.thunderbolts.info...

Rosetta's comet flies in the face of that theory, and the 2002 UX25, mentioned above, also does. Such objects could only be made of a mix of dust/rocks and frozen volatiles (ices) that stuck together due to gravity, leaving lots of voids inside.

First: perhaps 2002 UX25 is fluffy, after all. I find this extremely unlikely, not just because of the analogy with the asteroids but also because of what I learned early on in my snowball fight days: wet snow compacts easily. 2002 UX25 is large enough that it should have gotten warm during its formation. If its temperature raised any substantial amount, melting would have quickly destroyed porosity.

Are we now trying to reconcile the Electric Universe with the standard model, the same way some people try to reconcile evolution with creationism (or science with religion in general)?

Dunno if that is addressed at me, but no, i'm not trying to reconcile anything. What's up with the constant straw manning? If your contention with EU theories is that any criticism of the standard model must be automatically religiously motivated, then this your problem, not mine.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I already sourced and quoted the EU theory stating they have no or near no ice, and are solid rock bodies ripped from planets. Your source talking about this large body with low density KILLS EU theory dead, it makes it 100% wrong, they say that doesn't exist.

No, you haven't. You just putting up a straw man every time you're insisting EU proponents categorically exclude the possibility of low densities for comets.

From your OP:

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 (sic).

But, finally, now, we have a mass. And a mass, combined with the Herschel density measurement gives the density. And a 650 km diameter object in the Kuiper belt should have essentially no porosity, so, finally, we should be able to see if the smaller objects are really just super fluffy balls of rock and ice.

The Kuiper belt object 2002 UX25 has a density smaller than that of water ice. In fact, 2002 UX25 is the largest solid object in the solar system which could float in water. If you could find a big enough body of water to float it in.

Before you get all worked up again, here's what i initially said.

Definitely not enough to challenge the standard model, but it does raise some interesting questions.

originally posted by: Millers


No, you haven't. You just putting up a straw man every time you're insisting EU proponents categorically exclude the possibility of low densities for comets.

Oh really? Maybe you should look at page 3 where I respond to the video put out by Thunderbolts. Maybe you should read the Thunderbolts website.

Electric universe advocates have long contended that comets and asteroids were excavated from the surface of planets and moons in a prior epoch of planetary instability and electrical discharge activity. The evidence suggests that these bodies were fused by electric arcs acting on surfaces.

Unless you think a large chunk of rock blasted off a planet will float and have 1/3 the density of water that is EXACTLY what it means.

From your OP:

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 (sic).

Yes, how about you answer, what happens when a large chunk of rock lands in the ocean, does it float or sink?

But, finally, now, we have a mass. And a mass, combined with the Herschel density measurement gives the density. And a 650 km diameter object in the Kuiper belt should have essentially no porosity, so, finally, we should be able to see if the smaller objects are really just super fluffy balls of rock and ice.

The Kuiper belt object 2002 UX25 has a density smaller than that of water ice. In fact, 2002 UX25 is the largest solid object in the solar system which could float in water. If you could find a big enough body of water to float it in.

Thanks for that, further proof the EU theory is wrong since they believe UX25 is a large chunk of rock blasted off a planets surface, which it clearly is not.

Before you get all worked up again, here's what i initially said.

Definitely not enough to challenge the standard model, but it does raise some interesting questions.

It does not challenge the standard model at all. You are simply either not wanting to understand or unable to understand what I am saying. It does not challenge the underlying principles at all, not 1 bit. It means there MAY be more to how those principles interact to achieve outcomes. Right now UX25 is simply an anomaly, and by itself is meaningless. If others like it are found then it gets interesting, and the way we understand the universe will expand.

Please show me the method these low density bodies are formed using EU theory.

The density of asteroids is typically 3 to 5 grams per cubic centimetre. The density of water is 1 gram per cubic centimetre. The density of the (comet Holmes) nucleus should be somewhere between these values

So not LESS than water .. not 1/3 that of water, but he is saying it should be 2-3g/cm3. the Comet in my OP is .3g/cm3, ONE TENTH THAT. That is because EU theory says comets and asteroids are the SAME with the SAME density.

Here is more

ELECTRIC COMET MODEL:

Comets are debris produced during violent electrical interactions of planets and moons in an earlier phase of solar system history. Comets are similar to asteroids, and their composition varies. Most comets should be homogeneous -- their interiors will have the same composition as their surfaces. They are simply “asteroids on eccentric orbits.”

Thornhill et al have predicted that comets should in fact turn out to be consistent with the composition of asteroids, insofar as they are rocky bodies traveling in the sun’s plasmasphere.

It is this assertion that comets and asteroids have common genesis and will display common features and composition that is yet another experimentum crucis for the Electric Comet model.

So EU model suggests if comets and asteroids are shown to have a DIFFERENT composition, then EU theory is WRONG. Straight from THEIR mouths.

To put it simply, the standard model expected comets to be the cold remnants of an “accretion disk,” or water and/or volatiles cemented together in or beyond the cold outer reaches of the solar system (in later revisions, the water and volatiles, not having been observed on the surface, were posited to exist below the surface, invisible and hidden out of the reach of our observational power).

So the Standard model says comets should have low density and be accretion disks and they have water and volatiles.

The Electric Comet model, on the other hand, expects comets to display relatively homogeneous composition similar to that of meteorites. In fact, the Electric Comet model appears to say that they have common origin in catastrophic electrical discharges that literally electrically machined the surfaces of planets in our solar system in a relatively recent geological epoch, leaving identifiable electrical scars on those parent bodies and often on the comet / asteroid surfaces as well.

EU model predicts they are the exact same, they were created the same way, and out of the exact same materials.

Keep changing goal posts to keep the dream alive, but from their own mouths their theory is wrong and dead.

www.thunderbolts.info...

I'd imagine that the process of gigantic electric machining and the blasting off of chunks of material off planets' surfaces would vapourise any ices that may have been contained in the material. I've seen EU proponents describing comets as being charred from this process. Thus, I wouldn't give the phrase "though it would be irrational to categorically exclude the possibility of ice" much weight, seeing how they time and again emphasise that comets look ice-free.

wet snow compacts easily. 2002 UX25 is large enough that it should have gotten warm during its formation. If its temperature raised any substantial amount, melting would have quickly destroyed porosity.

Wet? Melting? What strange terms to use when we're talking about bodies in the vacuum of space. In vacuum, ice sublimates when warmed. When this happens inside a rock, I'd imagine this would leave a void. Unless the total mass of the object is sufficiently large, its rigidity and weak gravity will prevent the void from collapsing.

a reply to: wildespace

I believe this seals the deal.

Stardust appeared to contradict the “dirty snowball” model of comets insofar as the materials retrieved appeared to have been “born in fire” rather than in the cold outer reaches (or the imagined Oort Cloud). The materials returned appeared to be crystalline in nature and in configurations that are only produced in regions of intense heat and high pressure.

Born in Fire in regions of intense heat and pressure. Where does the ice come from again?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This is getting circular. The distinctions between asteroids and comets become increasingly blurred. Low density estimates alone cannot prove or disprove anything.

I don't think you've declared the death of the standard model when astrophysicists had to fundamentally revise prior assumptions that turned out to be wrong.

Philae is scheduled to land on the comets surface in November, let's see what happens when it does.

Keep changing goal posts to keep the dream alive, but from their own mouths their theory is wrong and dead.

Not my dream.

On a personal note. Chill out, there are enough condescending pricks in the world already, i don't think space science needs another one.

a reply to: wildespace

Wet? Melting? What strange terms to use when we're talking about bodies in the vacuum of space. In vacuum, ice sublimates when warmed. When this happens inside a rock, I'd imagine this would leave a void. Unless the total mass of the object is sufficiently large, its rigidity and weak gravity will prevent the void from collapsing.

Terms used by a planetary scientist when he explained his findings to a non-expert audience. Your claim was 'such objects could only be made of a mix of dust/rocks and frozen volatiles (ices) that stuck together due to gravity, leaving lots of voids inside'. That's exactly why the density calculations for UX25 were so surprising.

originally posted by: Millers
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't think you've declared the death of the standard model when astrophysicists had to fundamentally revise prior assumptions that turned out to be wrong.

Because the findings don't impact the standard model one bit, not even in the slightest. Models of how the Solar System developed does not = standard model. The APPLICATION of the standard model needs revision, how the comets and asteroids formed, accretion through gravity, does not. the source you linked even says that is how it happened. YOUR source says the Standard model is 100% correct. I keep telling you this, you just can't stand you are wrong. the application MAY be wrong, the Standard Model of accretion through gravity is accepted by YOUR source.

With that said I already stated the EU model is not dead, I said it was a deathblow, and the dying has begun. Maybe you should start reading what I type so you don't keep making posts that have nothing at all to do with what I said.

On a personal note. Chill out, there are enough condescending pricks in the world already, i don't think space science needs another one.

Awesome ad-hominem without addressing a single point I have made, nor the NUMEROUS quotes from Thunderbolts that prove my position correct and yours wrong. How about you actually deal with that instead of using logical fallacies.

Thunderbolts does not represent the only model of an Electric Universe, and the models are open to change as new evidence arises, just as it is any other science.
If giant pieces of rock were blasted off planets or moons to become asteroids or comets, then those chunks would likely be high in Silica, the most common material in the solar system, and would be subject to space weathering. The water detected from comets is being produced from the silicates, which contain water. The process occurs on other bodies, but with comets, the process is likely happening much faster when they get closer to the Sun, not because of the Suns heat, but because of the increasing electric field strength, so every time it comes close to the Sun, more water is expelled, leaving the comet to become more and more porous, until it becomes so weak, almost an aerogel, that it disintegrates.

Detection of solar wind-produced water in irradiated rims on silicate minerals

Our findings establish that water is a byproduct of SW (Solar Wind) space weathering. We conclude, on the basis of the pervasiveness of the SW and silicate materials, that the production of radiolytic SW water on airless bodies is a ubiquitous process throughout the solar system.

www.pnas.org...

Other models may have these type of objects created within the flux tubes that exist on scales from microscopic to galactic, as silicates and other materials can be arranged into regular or irregular shapes by the Coulomb forces, and are known as Coulomb crystals, which can be multilayered, and be spherical, and offer a method for moon and planet formation too.
So stop insisting that the Thunderbolts models are the only ones, and that they are the ultimate authority on the subject, as like everyone who is thinking, are just trying to find the processes that are occuring out there, the ones that are constantly surprising the 'old school', gravity-only scientists.
As wildespace has commented, mainstream science does include electricity and magnetism in its cosmic models, it is now a matter of trying to determine just how important a role it plays, and evidence is pointing to it being responsible for more and more processes that up till recently have been attributed to gravity and collisions and explosions etc. Exciting times anyway I'd say.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.

Wow! So, if this is a Death Blow to (the idea that the universe is governed by electrical forces) EU theory then the Standard Model must get deaded at least once a week. Can you get more dead than dead?

How about faster than light electric currents?

But they have struggled to explain why the radio pulses are so sharp and why they appear over such a broad range of the spectrum. Singleton and Schmidt, building on work in the 1980s by Houshang Ardavan of Cambridge University, argue that these properties are natural consequences of FTL electric currents driven by the neutron star’s magnetic field. For simple geometric reasons, beyond a certain distance from the star, the magnetic field sweeps through the atmosphere at faster than light.

So lets revisit 1890's theories eh?

Singleton says the basic principle of FTL currents goes back to work by English physicist Oliver Heaviside and German physicist Arnold Sommerfeldt in the 1890s, but was forgotten because Einstein’s theories dissuaded physicists from thinking about FTL phenomena, even those that evaded the theories’ strictures.

Oh Einstein.

Sorry to all about the condescending tone of my reply but we should not drag science into mud pits like we are in battle with Death Blows and Finishing Moves. We need to grow up and discuss.

a reply to: GaryN

Can you show me these electric comet theories that do what you claim?