The Electric Universe Goes Dark

??

What do we know?

The pictures look very rocky, I don't see much sign of it being a "dirty snowball" there is no debris on the lens and the comet landed badly, you'd think with all that bouncing "stuff" would have been kicked up from the surface, I realize any water would be hard frozen but ice chips very easy there should be tell tale crystals and other debris that floated up if there was ice of any kind how could no crystals have touched the lens they were photographing the decent? It just looks very "rocky"

Then I haven't heard anything in regards to "why" the harpoons failed.

The level of Gravity is interesting too, it's just not that big, I don't know much about the strength of gravity but, I see relatively small stones held to the surface, larger boulders... again this thing seems to be mainly rock, the probe bounced and came back down, my head is not thinking a "dirty snowball" would have that much gravity... me thinks by the looks of this and sharp large jagged peaks that the main body here is metallic and rocky

whatever we discover I think the old "dirty snowball" theory is gone just from looking at the pics, there is going to be "some" rewriting of comet theory for sure before said and done, even though the mission is now Fubared within the day just the bounces and pictures will tell us a lot and at the very least I think at best we are looking at something solid as hell

a reply to: ken10

It took a little while to analyze your image to try to figure out what you were intimating. I never really got the hang of art interpretation. However, here goes:

The sound is not one of silence, but it is more akin to the boisterous cacophony of a murder of bellicose crows.

And crows are among the worlds most intelligent animals, unlike the lowly cricket which is typically associated with the sound of silence. Furthermore the crows feast on crickets and announce their satisfaction with loud vocalizations of delight.

Then finally, before they take to flight, this group of like-minded individuals take a coordinated simultaneous crap on the Standard Model, as symbolized by the brave (or stupid) photographer.



Dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

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.

Well if the live cables represent the comet, and the birds represent the spacecraft....Do we assume that there is no electrical current flowing through the cables because the birds are on it, with no sparks explosion or funny things going on.

originally posted by: Astyanax
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.

I'll quote you on that, cause it's silly. If all matter contains electrons, and all electrons are electrically charged, is matter not then electrically charged? Strange Inference indeed.

Any ways I thought I would bring in the link to where you can hear the frequency multiplied x10,000 so as to enable us to hear what it would sound like if you could hear it. It seems this thing is generating a frequency, and that is why we went to it when we did. That much seems pretty much obvious.

That comet we just landed on? It's singing us a song. Listen.

No, this thread is still missing something. You never included any links to explain the tenets of electric universe theory, I've heard the term and must've Wiki'ed it before but here is the link again for a refresher for any one new to the term, or like me can't seem to remember.

Electric Universe - Rational Wiki

Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.

Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges.[3] The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.

The Electric Universe Theory Wiki

The Electric Universe theory argues that electricity plays a more important role in the Universe, than is generally accepted (see also "Electricity throughout the Universe"). As a theory, it offers explanations of various natural and astrophysical phenomena, some of which it claims are better understood without the need for various ad hoc explanations. As with any theory, the Electric Universe makes predictions that have been tested, and is published in both peer-reviewed papers, and popular books. The Electric Universe theory is interdisciplinary, integrating and supporting subject as diverse as the science (astronomy, geology, physics), with the soft sciences such as ancient history and comparative mythology. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Electric Universe has also become the target of pseudo-skeptics, whose criticisms have consisted of ad hominems, misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and labeling as pseudoscience.

The Electric Universe Theory Debunked

Hmmm. Towards the end of my research I found a notation on Wikipedia about why “Electric Universe Theory” had been removed. Apparently there are only a few people who currently publish ideas on the “electric universe” and those people publish exclusively on the internet or vanity presses. They use very misleading citations gleaned from mainstream sources in an attempt to lend credibility to the “electric universe theory”. Most papers listed as peer reviewed are not about the “electric universe” but about plasma cosmology (a different idea). The “electric universe” has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas.

Everything is Electric

What is the Electric Universe theory? The EU explained If everything is made up of atoms and they are electric then is everthing electric? The known universe is made of 99% plasma and plasma is an ionised (electrically charged) gas. Is the Universe Electric?

I wouldn't go as far to say the Universe ISN'T electric ...

In fact, it seems that everything, 100% of matter contains electrical properties. And really gravity, if that is your Universal force, is coming from the concentration of these energies. IE, without the energy to form the bonds of matter, you would not exist.

Maybe he spoke too soon but one of the scientists at the control centre was interviewed and said the reason the harpoons didn't fire automatically was that the surface layer on the comet was too soft for the impact to trigger them. I don't have a link to the interview as it was just short soundbite on the 24 hour news channel here and I didn't record it. He also said the harpoons could be manually fired once they're confident of little risk of the lander tipping over or, even worse, being launched off the surface if the harpoons don't get a grip.

A soft layer on the surface wouldn't be so strange if this thing has been orbitting through space for ages picking up tiny particles of dust with its gravity. Doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the core composition though.

a reply to: eisegesis

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

originally posted by: Astyanax

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.

So you are saying that all matter is composed of "charged" electrons but not all matter is electrically charged. I don't know much about this stuff, but what are you talking about? Are there different types of charges?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Electrons have a negative charge, protons have a positive charge and neutrons have no charge.
In a normal atom you have an equal number of electrons and protons so it has an overall neutral charge. If you lose or gain electrons then it is either a positively or negatively charged ion. Basic stuff really..

originally posted by: nrd101

originally posted by: Astyanax
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.

I'll quote you on that, cause it's silly. If all matter contains electrons, and all electrons are electrically charged, is matter not then electrically charged? Strange Inference indeed.

No, have you hot heard of protons? Every atom also has protons in it too, and they cancel out the charge from the electron. Perhaps, go back and study high school chemistry? That's pretty basic stuff there.

a reply to: criticalhit

If you made these images of even pure ice on Earth monochrome with high contrast they would appear like rock.

www.swisseduc.ch...

www.zbrushcentral.com...

a reply to: nrd101

I'll quote you on that, cause it's silly. If all matter contains electrons, and all electrons are electrically charged, is matter not then electrically charged? Strange Inference indeed.

Silly, eh? Better tell that to Niels Bohr.

*

Are there different types of charges?

Yep. As others have already pointed out: positively charged protons in the atomic nucleus, an equal number of negatively charged electrons in orbit around the nucleus. Net charge: zero.

Only ionized matter (plasma) is electrically charged.

a reply to: Astyanax

Yep. As others have already pointed out:

got it now. I was confused how it was worded originally but thought about it later and realized what you meant. Thanks for clarification.

a reply to: ken10

Overhead wires do not have any strong net charge. They have currents confined inside.

Not the same.

a reply to: nrd101

What this doesn't say is that the explanations by the "Electric Universe" people are preposterous, giving poor explanations with less/no experimental evidence vs the good explanations with good experimental evidence. They pretend as if astrophysicists have somehow ignored electromagnetism which is laughably false. They, on the other hand, ignore the other parts of physics (like gravitation) which are completely true.

Impact craters aren't from electrical discharges, because they look like what happens with mechanical impacts. After all, we have OBSERVED them, we can simulate them, and we can do experiments.

It's perfectly fine to critique mainstream science---but not when your own explanations are superficially and trivially contradicted by the enormous set of known experimental and observational evidence. The crackpots who rail against the academy and decry "book learning" are not only mostly ignorant of the theory but also the experiment which supports the standard understanding of physical science today, and they don't even know what they don't even know (the infamous Dunning-Kreuger effect).

I'm not going to tell a cardiologist that the circulation is really pumped by the thymus and not the heart, when the cardiologist has personally done heart transplants.

a reply to: Astyanax




here's the sounds it's making

a reply to: mbkennel

They, on the other hand, ignore the other parts of physics (like gravitation) which are completely true.

And you can explain gravity? Oh yes, that curved space-time stuff, well, if you want to talk about the nonsense of EU, we should first look at the nonsense of the Newtonians. Curved space-time, phtt.

a reply to: ken10

Well if the live cables represent the comet, and the birds represent the spacecraft....Do we assume that there is no electrical current flowing through the cables because the birds are on it, with no sparks explosion or funny things going on.

I was really off on that one. I thought your post was in response to the original post concerning the silence of the EU crowd.

In the case of birds on the high voltage power lines, they don't get electrocuted because there is no complete circuit. They are actually at the same potential as the power line. If they were to spread their wings and accidentally contact the neutral or a ground wire while still roosting on the power line they would be instantly converted into a "crispy critter."

In the case of the interaction of a probe with a comet, the EU theory is that there already exists a large difference of electric potential between the probe and the comet. When the probe contacts the comet, a sudden charge exchange results in a large arc or other violent event.

For instance, in the case of the Deep Impact mission to Comet Temple 1, the EU proponents believe that when the impactor crashed into the comet at high velocity a sudden charge exchange was responsible for some of the unexpected behavior of the contact. There was a high energy event and a premature loss of contact with the impactor.

On the other hand, when Philae landed on Rosetta, the lander took a considerably longer amount of time to make contact. Apparently the theory is that there was no violent event because the lander had a much longer time to exchange charges with the comet and reach charge parity.

Dex

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: mbkennel

They, on the other hand, ignore the other parts of physics (like gravitation) which are completely true.

And you can explain gravity? Oh yes, that curved space-time stuff, well, if you want to talk about the nonsense of EU, we should first look at the nonsense of the Newtonians. Curved space-time, phtt.

Yeah, it's nonsense that just happens to be consistent with observational evidence:
a) Hubble expansion
b) compact stellar objects/black holes
c) gravitational lensing
d) anomalous precession of Mercury
e) GPS
f) decay of millisecond pulsars

just like quantum mechanics which is unintuitive nonsense other than working.

There are other reformulations of GR which can avoid curved spacetime (and put the curvature somewhere else) but all physically the same, and curved spacetime is the most natural representation.

This is a long post which probably won't be read by many people. Sometimes I don't know why I bother...

a reply to: mbkennel

The crackpots who rail against the academy and decry "book learning" are not only mostly ignorant of the theory but also the experiment which supports the standard understanding of physical science today, and they don't even know what they don't even know (the infamous Dunning-Kreuger effect).

That's an interesting opinion. However, there are a number of well educated and talented scientists who are proponents of Electric Universe (EU) theory, or at least the precursor to it, Plasma Cosmology (PC).

Much of EU theory is based on the Plasma Cosmology theories of Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén and others. His theories laid the groundwork for the scientific elements of EU.

From the above linked Wikipedia article, this statement is of interest:

Alfvén's work was disputed for many years by the senior scientist in space physics, the British mathematician and geophysicist Sydney Chapman. Alfvén's disagreements with Chapman stemmed in large part from trouble with the peer review system. Alfvén rarely benefited from the acceptance generally afforded senior scientists in scientific journals. He once submitted a paper on the theory of magnetic storms and auroras to the American journal Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity only to have his paper rejected on the ground that it did not agree with the theoretical calculations of conventional physics of the time. He was regarded as a person with unorthodox opinions in the field by many physicists, R. H. Stuewer noting that "... he remained an embittered outsider, winning little respect from other scientists even after he received the Nobel Prize..." and was often forced to publish his papers in obscure journals. Alfvén recalled:

When I describe the [plasma phenomena] according to this formulism most referees do not understand what I say and turn down my papers. With the referee system which rules US science today, this means that my papers are rarely accepted by the leading US journals.

Emphasis mine.

Isn't it interesting that the mainstream science community still hasn't learned its lesson?

PlasmaCosmology.net provides more detail about the connections between PC and EU:

While both viewpoints permit many ideas previously excluded by Big Bang Cosmology, The Electric Universe looks at the bigger picture, and promotes more radical ideas about the role of electricity in the universe, from ancient mythology to the mind-body connection.

It may be easy to dismiss the more esoteric elements of EU, however the scientific foundation, based on PC, has strong evidence and a solid theoretical framework.

Donald E. Scott, Ph.D. is a proponent of EU theory. He has published several papers discussing aspects of the theory. Including this one discussing the acceleration of the Solar Wind. Dr. Scott has a considerable repertoire of knowledge, and therefore clearly does not meet the criteria for the Dunning–Kruger effect.

There are probably others, but this is all of the time that I have for this project right now.


Dex

originally posted by: DexterRiley

On the other hand, when Philae landed on Rosetta, the lander took a considerably longer amount of time to make contact. Apparently the theory is that there was no violent event because the lander had a much longer time to exchange charges with the comet and reach charge parity.

Dex

So, how did this hypothetical large electrostatic potential difference influence the orbital mechanics of the probe? How did they possibly guide it there given the far stronger strength of electromagnetism, using plain old gravity and inertia? Spacecraft guidance requires precision down to many decimal places.