The Electric Universe Goes Dark

a reply to: mbkennel

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.

My statement referred to the fact that there was no large electrostatic event related to landing Philae, as there apparently was with Deep Impact.

I accept the fact that gravity was the dominant force with respect to landing the probe on the comet. In this case it is a matter of scale. At similar scales electromagnetic forces dominate over gravity. A small magnet can hold a ball bearing tightly, easily overcoming the force of gravity. However that same small magnet has little chance of holding a cannon ball the same way.

Now once the probe got close to, and actually contacted the surface of the comet, electromagnetic forces became more of a factor. At that point, it is possible that the EM forces overcame gravitational forces and may have been instrumental in causing some of the anomalous behavior experienced by Philae at touchdown.



Dex

originally posted by: Astyanax
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.

That's true, they will take whatever scientific facts are obtained and claim those facts support their ideas, even if they don't. Here's an example where that happened on a previous comet mission, where the probe found little surface water but it found water below the surface. The EU folks made a video which paraphrased said "see, just as we predicted there was no water", which is a gross distortion of the scientific findings. Here is my post explaining that discrepancy in the relevant thread:

Electric Universe Strikes again! Comets destroy the standard model!

So I think you're right. History will probably repeat itself in that again EU proponents will take the real science and distort the findings to make them appear to meet their predictions, even if the science actually directly contradicts their predictions. Given the lack of scientific expertise among the EU followers, such deception is remarkably successful and some people may actually believe the EU claims that the probe found the comet was dry as a bone, when that claim is completely false.

a reply to: DexterRiley

Now once the probe got close to, and actually contacted the surface of the comet, electromagnetic forces became more of a factor. At that point, it is possible that the EM forces overcame gravitational forces and may have been instrumental in causing some of the anomalous behavior experienced by Philae at touchdown.

Are you suggesting that EM forces attracted the probe, repelled the probe, or somehow both?

a reply to: NiZZiM

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.

I didn't read anywhere that the source of these vibrations is 'a supposed electric charge' carried by the comet. That's because it carries no electric charge. There's more about the 'singing' in this JPL press release if you're interested.

Electric charges don't make things vibrate continuously. They cause instantaneous or very short-lived peturbations — thunderclaps or roars — if they discharge in an acoustic medium. Electric currents can create continuous sounds through the conversion of one form of energy into another, but even electric-universe models don't predict electric currents running through comets. The prediction (which Rosetta has clearly shown to be wrong) is that comets carry high charges of static electricity.

Thanks to the scientifically informed members posting here, I think that's the only claim made by EU proponents that remained to be addressed in this thread. There's been some heroic flint-striking here from our pseudoscientifically inclined friends, but it hasn't cast any light that I can see.

(snip)

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Are you suggesting that EM forces attracted the probe, repelled the probe, or somehow both?

We know that a magnetic field is present on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The currently popular meme of the singing comet is a testament to that. I don't know what the field strength of this field is, but it exists.

It's highly likely that Philae had either an excess of electrons or protons, in other words it had an electrostatic charge. Satellite charging is a well known phenomena. An electrostatic charge implies an electric field, which may be at cross-purposes to 67P's magnetic field.

The gravitational forces are relatively constant along the path of the lander from release to touchdown. However the electromagnetic forces increase field strength with the square of the unit distance traveled.

Upon release of Philae, the gravitational force will be gigantic compared to the EM force. As the lander approaches the target, the magnetic field strength of the comet, relative to the lander, is increasing exponentially.

Of course there a number of variables at play here including the net charge of the lander, field strength and direction of the comet's magnetic field(s), as well as the astrodynamics of the comet and lander. Bouncing would imply a repulsion force. The mutual EM repulsion force eventually becomes non-trivial with respect to the gravitational attraction of the objects. If the orbital mechanics do not account for this effect, the satellite contacts the surface too lightly to anchor.

There is also the phenomena of charge exchange between 67P and Philae. There will be some charge difference between the two objects. As the objects approach one another, they attempt to come to a common energy state by "exchanging" particles, using the plasma's conductance as the medium. That charge exchange represents a current flow, thus another magnetic field is introduced into the equation.

This theory is rather straightforward and doesn't depend on EU to be valid. So, it's likely that the folks at ESA took all of this into account. But, EU theory speculates that the field energies at play are higher than accounted for in the Standard Model. If that is the case, then the navigational parameters used by the ESA were incorrect, and would lead to the anomalous behavior similar to what was experienced.


Dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

I'm sure it's my fault but I don't see an answer to my question. Is it waffles?

a reply to: DexterRiley

We know that a magnetic field is present on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The currently popular meme of the singing comet is a testament to that.

Has it been reliably established that the 'singing' is of magnetic origin, or is that just a hypothesis?

It's highly likely that Philae had either an excess of electrons or protons

Why is that?

The gravitational forces are relatively constant along the path of the lander from release to touchdown.

Do you mean that gravity on Philae does not obey an inverse square law? Why is that?

Bouncing would imply a repulsion force.

When I drop a ball on the floor and it bounces, of what kind is the 'repulsion force'? Is the force that makes the lander bounce different from the agency that makes the ball bounce ?

The mutual EM repulsion force eventually becomes non-trivial with respect to the gravitational attraction of the objects.

Does this mean that gravity on Philae obeys an inverse square law (or something similar) after all?

There is also the phenomena of charge exchange between 67P and Philae. There will be some charge difference between the two objects.

Why would that be?

As the objects approach one another, they attempt to come to a common energy state by "exchanging" particles, using the plasma's conductance as the medium.

You mean there would have been arc discharges between the lander and the comet? Wouldn't they have fried Philae's sensitive instruments? If so, how come there was telemetry and activity on the lander, everything except the anchoring bolts working fine, until the battery died?

You seem well up on physics. Let's talk a little physics.

It' so funny to see people bashing eu theory while in the same time they don't know where the gravity comes from... let me quote universe today:

www.universetoday.com...

Where Does Gravity Come From?

To be honest, we’re not entirely sure.

and yet you are basing your outdated cosmology on your non-knowledge and acting like spanish inquisition on anyone that is open to new ideas...

hilarious

I didn't know the EU people were expecting sparks.
I do know the standard group were expecting snow and ice.
And yet....

a reply to: donhuangenaro

Where does electricity come from? What are the origins of the electromagnetic force?

I just love it when people want to talk basic physics.

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Will Philae Explode When It Reaches Comet Chury?

Authored by ATS's Resident Grand Panjandrum of All Things EU.

I do wish he'd show up. Maybe I should draw a pentagram, or light a Hand of Glory or something.

a reply to: Astyanax

I'm reserving this post for gloating should the probe short out, explode, or otherwise fail to return good data because of electrical interference on the comet.

That thread is priceless! Oh AnCap, wherefore art thou

Does anyone else notice the correlation between an individuals grasp of High School physics and their propensity to declare relativity and the standard model of particle physics have been overturned by a nonsensical mechanism like the Electric Universe theory.

I cant help but wonder if the same people insisting they are correct in the face of 100 years of intensive research, observation and experimentation ( ALL of which, might I add, supports the predictions made by classical science and the mainstream establishment)

Not to be a wet blanket but to believe that you are going to overturn the work of some of the most brilliant minds our civilization has been able to produce with your pet theory that cant even withstand the scrutiny of basic grade school level scientific principals is rather naive.

In my opinion, the real tragedy is if those of you who have been suckered by the Electric Universe nonsense spent half the effort to properly educate yourselves enough to understand the basics of the science you are dismissing without understanding, most would abandon their support of the idea without another word said.

Sorry but it is that cut and dry when it comes to Mankind's well established understanding of Newtonian physics, Relativity, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.

originally posted by: donhuangenaro
It' so funny to see people bashing eu theory while in the same time they don't know where the gravity comes from... let me quote universe today:

www.universetoday.com...

Where Does Gravity Come From?

To be honest, we’re not entirely sure.

and yet you are basing your outdated cosmology on your non-knowledge and acting like spanish inquisition on anyone that is open to new ideas...

hilarious

Hilarious is right, thank you for proving my point.

I am guessing that you missed the day in school they were teaching orbital mechanics and missed learning about how well Isaac Newtons laws describe the motion and behavior of our universe.

I mean, you do understand the probe we are discussing traveled for 10 years through multiple orbital maneuvers to increase velocity and alter trajectory that a miscalculation of a nano second or a mistake of just couple of Jules of force would have ended the mission.

Now do you reallly think the probes amazing journey was calced out and made possible by applying James Clerk Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism or Isaac Newtons celestial mechanics based on.... Gravity!

In other words, the Rosetta probe could never have gotten to the comet without the flight engineers having a comprehensive understanding of the physics which govern macro gravity.

The blog you referenced gives the impression modern science is clueless about the origin of the gravitational force itself and the mechanics of gravity at the quantum scale... From the Universe today article you sourced...

Our understanding of gravity breaks down at both the very small and the very big: at the level of atoms and molecules, gravity just stops working. And we can’t describe the insides of black holes and the moment of the Big Bang without the math completely falling apart.

The problem is that our understanding of both particle physics and the geometry of gravity is incomplete.

“Having gone from basically philosophical understandings of why things fall to mathematical descriptions of how things accelerate down inclines from Galileo, to Kepler’s equations describing planetary motion to Newton’s formulation of the Laws of Physics, to Einstein’s formulations of relativity, we’ve been building and building a more comprehensive view of gravity.

But we’re still not complete,” said Dr. Pamela Gay. “We know that there still needs to be some way to unite quantum mechanics and gravity and actually be able to write down equations that describe the centers of black holes and the earliest moments of the Universe. But we’re not there yet.”

And so, the mystery remains … for now.

I would also point out that the quote you used was written in late 2013, some 6 months before the physicists at CERN confirmed the discovery of the Higgs Bosun which interacts with the Higgs field to impart mass to matter which is then responsible for creating the gravitational force.

Granted, both questions are still being studied but while you might not understand the origins of gravitation, science has done a phenomenal job of verifying the Higgs mechanism.

The Higgs Bosun was postulated to exist and accurately described as as a short lived member of the sub atomic particle zoo due to a consequence predicted by the math governing the standard model

I don't understand how you can make the comment

yet you are basing your outdated cosmology on your non-knowledge

??

I'm not the one preaching a disprove premise based on flawed science from a mistaken belief in something coined the Luminiferous aethera which was proven flat out wrong by the end of the 19th century.

Harsh but true...

Now do you reallly think the probes amazing journey was calced out and made possible by applying James Clerk Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism or Isaac Newtons celestial mechanics based on.... Gravity!

The probe had an autonomous star tracker, it knew where it was, and made adjustments as needed. Gravity may be an electromagnetic force, the boffins are still trying to unify them, and in certain instances, either Maxwells or Newtons forces will give the same results for an orbit.

the physicists at CERN confirmed the discovery of the Higgs Bosun

That 'discovery' has already been called into question.

a reply to: GaryN

The probe had an autonomous star tracker, it knew where it was, and made adjustments as needed.

I've heard some breathtaking bollocks from EU supporters over the years, but I have to say this is the first time I've heard one of you actually deny the existence of gravity. Go to the top of the class!

a reply to: Astyanax

I denied the existence of gravity? Comprehension problems, have we? But while we are on the subject, and you being so clever, can you explain gravity to me?
"Mind Firmly Closed", I like that. You think you know it all, don't need to hear anything else, ever. Brilliant.

originally posted by: GaryN
Gravity may be an electromagnetic force

i dont get this statement..

Earth has an electromagnetic field, but it is donut in shape.

but Earths gravity is more or less constant everywhere on the surface whether you are at the equator or at the poles.

if gravity was an electromagnetic force than the gravitational force caused by earths magnetic field should vary markedly on each latitude, coming down to 0m/s^2 in some areas on the surface of earth..

a reply to: GaryN

I denied the existence of gravity?

Indeed you did, although, knowing no physics, you may not be aware of it.

Comprehension problems, have we?

Not at this end. At yours, fairly serious ones, I should say.

can you explain gravity to me?

Come with me to the edge of this cliff here, and I will give you a practical demonstration.

Now hear this: I treat people as they treat me. Be courteous and reasonable, and I will be the same. Be sarcastic and derogatory, and you will receive the same in turn. Care to play?

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

I didn't know the EU people were expecting sparks. I do know the standard group were expecting snow and ice. And yet....

Oh really? You KNOW that the standard group were expecting SNOW? Something that requires an atmosphere? You KNOW that standard theory expects a atmosphere? You KNOW that do you?

Hint: a 'dirty snowball' is not SNOW - it is ice. The term 'dirty snowball' is known in English as an analogy. A term used that would be familiar to an unsophisticated audience to help them understand the underlying idea. Snowballs are not snow - they are snowballs - something completely different.