The Electric Universe Goes Dark

Silence and darkness have shrouded the Electric Universe in the days since the Philae landing.

Rosetta's comet has shown no sign of being electrically charged. No sparks, no explosions, no funny things going on with the spacecraft's telemetry.

And here, on ATS, nothing but silence from the Usual Electric Suspects.

Could this be the end for them? I doubt it. They'll be back soon, with a new set of rationalizations.

Religious belief takes more than facts to kill it.

Good call. I was thinking the same thing. I really wanted to believe the thing would just vaporize on contact, but no dice. The silence was deafening.

Boba

a reply to: Astyanax

A headline worth a thousand pictures.

Maybe their batteries died?

I'm just giving them static

Shocking.

a reply to: Astyanax

What exactly are the concepts involved with the electric universe? Does it make predictions saying comets are not comets?

Is it supposed to have an electric charge in a near vacuum?

But at a different angle.. Don't you always have an electric charge perpendicular to magnetic field lines? As in inside the magnetosphere of the Earth or Sun? I probably need to read up on electric universe theory to understand, but every atom has electrons and is magnetic or electric to that extent. Anything like a Sun, plasma, should have even more flow.. I can walk around outside without being hit by lightning but the earth is Very electrical.

Maybe they state certain predictions I can look into.


should be an interesting thread.

Harvard.edu
The generation of magnetic fields and electric currents in cometary plasma tails

Due to the folding of the interplanetary magnetic field into the tail as a comet sweeps through the interplanetary medium, the magnetic field in the tail can be built up to the order of 100 gammas at a heliocentric distance of about 1 AU. This folding of magnetic flux tubes also results in a cross-tail electric current passing through a neutral sheet. When streams of enhanced plasma density merge with the main tail, cross-tail currents as large as 1 billion A may result. A condition could arise which causes a significant fraction of this current to be discharged through the inner coma, resulting in rapid ionization. The typical time scale for such outbursts of ionization is estimated to be of the order of 10,000 sec, which is in reasonable agreement with observation.

So Harvard seems to be saying that you can get 1 billion Amps of current in a comet tail... Which CAN be discharged in the inner coma.

It is an infinite universe though, unlimited possibilities and all of that. Some comets may be more volatile than others. Who knows?

I'm a layman, and stake no claim to understanding in this field. I wish it were simple, I would love it to be fanciful. It's just not always the case. I don't think this will be the death of electric universe theory, but it will lead to altered and expanded conjecture. That is the best part for me.

Boba

originally posted by: Astyanax
Silence and darkness have shrouded the Electric Universe in the days since the Philae landing.

Rosetta's comet has shown no sign of being electrically charged. No sparks, no explosions, no funny things going on with the spacecraft's telemetry.

And here, on ATS, nothing but silence from the Usual Electric Suspects.

Could this be the end for them? I doubt it. They'll be back soon, with a new set of rationalizations.

Religious belief takes more than facts to kill it.

A comet is the sum of it's parts. While it might not be "electric" as a whole, every atom that makes up anything the comet is composed of will contain charged electrons. It's what contributes to it's magnetic field.

An electron in space generates an electric field surrounding it. An electron moving relative to an observer generates a magnetic field. External magnetic fields deflect an electron. Electrons radiate or absorb energy in the form of photons when accelerated.

Link

A macroscopic body can develop an electric charge through rubbing, by the triboelectric effect.

The comet is the macroscopic body. If the electrons aren't given away freely between chemical reactions this is the only other way I could think it might produce a charge.

The triboelectric effect (also known as triboelectric charging) is a type of contact electrification in which certain materials become electrically charged after they come into frictive contact with a different material. Rubbing glass with fur, or a comb through the hair, can build up triboelectricity. Most everyday static electricity is triboelectric. The polarity and strength of the charges produced differ according to the materials, surface roughness, temperature, strain, and other properties.

Edward Leedskalnin would not approve of this thread.

No charge? Did you not see the articles about the comet singing from a supposed electric charge that was not expected? Yeah maybe you should check your facts a little more.

Oh and I forgot to mention that the charge differential would make sense if the lander had a significant charge differential, but it did spend a lot of time in deep space and landed before the comet was very active at all.

It's too early for anyone to say what's right or wrong since we've yet to see ANY data from the experiments on the comet. Let's just wait and see and not jump to conclusions so quick.

a reply to: NiZZiM

If you know something then post the link unless it is to some hoax bin website. Don't just post that facts should be checked if you have something then put it up otherwise you're just static.

a reply to: Astyanax

My thoughts exactly. Every time I open a Rosetta thread I expect to be thrown into an EU argument. Instead I haven't heard a peep from that crowd.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NiZZiM

If you know something then post the link unless it is to some hoax bin website. Don't just post that facts should be checked if you have something then put it up otherwise you're just static.

I saw no links in the OP. Doesn't the same go for them?

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NiZZiM

If you know something then post the link unless it is to some hoax bin website. Don't just post that facts should be checked if you have something then put it up otherwise you're just static.

I saw no links in the OP. Doesn't the same go for them?

What exactly should the OP post? A search result for electric universe theory where nothing has been added?

Try to remember the OP said there has been nothing from that group since the landing. I can't ask someone to post evidence of a negative.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NiZZiM

If you know something then post the link unless it is to some hoax bin website. Don't just post that facts should be checked if you have something then put it up otherwise you're just static.

I saw no links in the OP. Doesn't the same go for them?

What exactly should the OP post? A search result for electric universe theory where nothing has been added?

Try to remember the OP said there has been nothing from that group since the landing. I can't ask someone to post evidence of a negative.

It appears the OP is trying to discredit the electric universe theory based on ONE comet, but provided no hard evidence either.

Here's mine. Further reading in the link.

Comet nuclei charge electrostatically. (like I pointed out earlier, the triboelectric effect)

Comet dust charges electrostatically causing it to levitate from the comet surface.

Cometary current system: plasma tail streamers separated by a neutral current sheet, has a total current exceeding 108A.

Cometary plasma tails, generate magnetic fields and electric currents of up to a billion Amp.

Cometary atmosphere feature electric currents.

Cometary aurora due to "current discharges into the atmosphere from the tail.

What fascinates me is the level of animosity the majority of the members of ATS show toward the Electric Universe crowd.

I can't say that I hold with all of the beliefs of the EU crowd. But, I'm still keeping an open mind about some of their theories.

When I first heard about Philae not anchoring when it first landed, I immediately remembered something I had read several months ago.

It is expected by Electric Universe proponents that there will be puzzles for the Rosetta team. It seems likely that they will find the comet to be dense and rocky, rather than a slushy, porous rubble pile. Indeed, Philae could have difficulty latching on to 67P/C-G, since its harpoon might not be able to penetrate the hard surface. Also, the ice screws that are supposed to keep it anchored may not find any ice into which they can drill.

That was a blog post on The Thunderbolts Project website from August 6th, 2014.


Dex

a reply to: eisegesis

Am I mistaken but isn't your link from before the landing. In other words the EU theory people have gone dark.

a reply to: eisegesis

Every atom that makes up anything the comet is composed of will contain charged electrons.

Indeed, this is true of all matter. Yet not all matter is electrically charged.

'Charged electron' is an oxymoron, by the way. An electron is a unit of charge.

Man, this stuff is heavy for 12:30 in the morn. I'm very interested in all of this and have some things I would like to post, but I don't want to just throw up a bunch of links without trying to explain my position. I'll be back...

It looks like someone has come before you and the bottom line is, the data just isn't there to support either position at the moment. I do like the comments in the science blog that wildspace linked to though.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Definitely food for thought. S+F for getting my gears turning. Not like you need them anyway.

a reply to: eisegesis

ya i agree its too early in the game to say anything in favor of one camp or the other,

but many ats members sure do love slandering the alternative theories people hold so why wait right?

Not sure what point the OP is trying to make.....