The “Surprisingly” Dark Comet Chury

The ESA Rosetta probe mission to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko has begun returning data from the spacecraft’s “Alice” ultraviolet (UV) spectrograph. Yet again, scientists are “surprised” by what the instrument is finding. "Surprises" are the hallmark of a bad theory. Good theories make accurate predictions.

The comet is pitch black, darker than charcoal, and no ice has been detected on its surface.

“We’re a bit surprised at both just how very unreflective the comet’s surface is, and what little evidence of exposed water-ice it shows,” says Dr. Alan Stern, Alice principal investigator and an associate vice president of the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) Space Science and Engineering Division.

I’m confused as to why the scientists are “surprised.” This is the exact same type of surface we have observed ON EVERY SINGLE COMET we have ever viewed up close with spacecraft – pitch black, dry, cratered, looking like a solid piece of rock.

The comet also displays a rather impossible shape. At first, scientists thought the lobed shape of comet Chury was the result of two comets colliding with each other, but Mark McCaughrean, ESA’s Senior Science Advisor, notes that, “since we’ve been there now and we can see much more detail, it really doesn’t look like that.” The comet appears to be one solid contiguous body, as I predicted.

Further:

-I predicted the pitch black body.
-I predicted the solid rocky cratered surface.
-I predicted it would be devoid of ice.
-I predicted the lack of observed jets, even though the probe is detecting oxygen and hydrogen in the comet’s coma right now.

So if I can predict these things, why is the ESA “surprised” by what is being returned by the Rosetta probe?

Why do they keep insisting that comets are dirty melting snowballs when every single piece of evidence says this is not the case at all?

It remains to be seen if the rest of my predictions will come true. I think there is a good chance they will. The probe will have difficulty sticking to the surface because it wasn’t designed to land on solid rock. The probe and spacecraft may short out or get zapped by a lightning bolt from the electrical activity on the comet. The measurements of plasma activity on the comet by the Langmuir probe will be off the charts.

There is one other interesting fact about Chury. Chury's apparent mass is so low that, if it were placed into an ocean, it would float.

If the CONSERT experiment on board Rosetta is successful, I predict it will return results indicating the comet is solid rock. If the comet is found to be solid rock, it would confirm EU's prediction of the Earth having a lower gravity field during the time of the dinosaurs.

I recently wrote an article on the subject of dinosaurs being impossibly huge, too large to exist in Earth's present gravitational field. There's simply no way Earth's gravity was what it is now when dinosaurs walked the Earth. The only way to explain their size is through a change in gravity. And the only way to explain a change in gravity is by the electric model of gravity proposed by Thornhill.

The Rosetta mission may indeed live up to its name - a Rosetta stone pointing the way toward a real history of the Earth and a new electric cosmological theory.

Nice cherry picking. You make claims based on the fact that they have not done the exploration needed to find what they believe is there. All the evidence so far points to the composition being EXACTLY what Mainstream said, and not at all what EU says.

So please explain this ...

Since Comets and asteroids are the same thing, big chunks of planets ripped off by electrical forces, why is this comet's mass exactly as Mainstream predicts, and exactly NOT what EU predicts?

"The mass is in the realms of what was expected," says European Space Agency (Esa) project scientist Matt Taylor.

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 ...

If you could put the object in an ocean, it would float.

So they were not surprised?

At this stage, it simply constrains what we believe it is made from

Most asteroids are between 2-7 g/cm3. Rosetta is 0.3g/cm3.

Strike 3.

Of course this is not the end, more data will come in soon. The slow death known as Rosetta awaits the EU people.

www.bbc.com...

ETA: I checked your source for the quote

since we’ve been there now and we can see much more detail, it really doesn’t look like that

I am unable to find it to see the context it was said in. As I already quoted, all data indicates the comet is made up exactly of what they thought. Unless solid chunks of rock and metal float ... it's not as you predicted.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't think the EU people are going to be in for a "surprise."

EU theory says gravity is a function of charge polarization, which means it is possible for super-dense objects to weigh very little in the EU model, which is something that is impossible in the standard model.

The probe has an instrument called the CONSERT (COmet Nucleus Sounding Experiment by Radiowave Transmission). This sensor will return data consistent with a solid piece of rock, not a hollow snowball.

That's another prediction I made which is linked in the OP.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't think the EU people are going to be in for a "surprise."

EU theory says gravity is a function of charge polarization, which means it is possible for super-dense objects to weight very little in the EU model, which is something that is impossible in the standard model.

The probe has an instrument called the CONSERT (COmet Nucleus Sounding Experiment by Radiowave Transmission). This sensor will return data consistent with a solid piece of rock, not a hollow snowball.

That's another prediction I made which is linked in the OP.

You'll see me in here gloating when data gets published from that experiment showing the comet to be solid rock.

Hahahahaha, GOLD. The data that supports my belief is perfect. The data that does not is wrong.

Got it. Hilarious.

Oh and the sensor can't return any data. Remember, it will bounce off, that was your prediction.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The CONSERT experiment will show it to be a solid piece of rock, regardless of how much it weighs. The ESA will be "surprised" once again.

I hope the probe successfully lands, but as you note, I think the odds of a successful landing without it bouncing off or getting fried by electrical activity are rather low. If it does manage to land, we'll get to see the results of the CONSERT experiment, which will further prove my theory.

Either way, the results are going to support EU theory.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Don't be mad that I'm better at making predictions than you are.

The CONSERT experiment will show it to be a solid piece of rock, regardless of how much it weighs. The ESA will be "surprised" once again.

They are not surprised. It must suck for you that I showed in the very first reply to your thread how you cherry pick quotes in order to obfuscate the truth. The preliminary data is NOT surprising, it is EXACTLY what was expected, and the comet's composition appears to be EXACTLY as predicted.

I quoted it, I sourced it, and your only reply is "must be the data is wrong". You have been exposed.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm not cherry picking anything - you are.

I'm citing surface albedo (surprise), shape (surprise), cratering (surprise) and lack of ice (surprise).

You cite mass as being the only thing they aren't surprised about.

Talk about cherry picking, take a look in the mirror.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm not cherry picking anything - you are.

I'm citing surface albedo (surprise), shape (surprise), cratering (surprise) and lack of ice (surprise).

You cite mass as being the only thing they aren't surprised about.

Talk about cherry picking, take a look in the mirror.

All of your surprises ave explanations, as much as you want to claim they don't. The mass completely destroys your theory. Will you promise to go away and admit EU is wrong after the mission is over and mainstream wins?

ETA: By go away I mean stop with the EU nonsense, not ATS.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

In order for the mass to undermine EU theory, it has to be demonstrated that the comet is hollow or a loose conglomerate. This has not been proven yet. We have to wait for the results of the lander.

If the comet is proven to be solid, as I suspect it is, then this is going to be a real problem for the standard model to explain. The EU model already has a simple explanation for it.

Oh, and there is yet another issue that the scientists have failed to account for. Because the "dust" on the comet is being electrically sputtered from the surface, it may end up electrostatically coating the Rosetta probe's solar panels with black dust, regardless of their orientation to the comet.

Hopefully the probe doesn't die out from lack of solar power before it can drop the lander and return the CONSERT data. There's a lot of things that can go wrong on this mission because scientists have neglected to take electrical forces into account.

You two are like two teenage girls about to cat fight over who has the best fashion sense. It is ridiculous and a turn-off not to the thread or theories being discussed, but rather that of your reputations, regardless of what they currently may be. You both, in the perceptions of your peers, are losing respect, credibility, and legitimacy by acting like children rather than adults capable of discussing and debating a matter civilly in a mature manner.

Let this be said to everyone who take such approaches.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Yeah, I removed one of my snarky comments.

I get frustrated when debating this stuff.

You know what's interesting about this light weight comet mass is that, if the comet is found to be solid rock, it would confirm EU's prediction of the Earth having a lower gravity field during the time of the dinosaurs.

I recently wrote an article on the subject of dinosaurs being impossibly huge, too large to exist in Earth's present gravitational field.

There's simply no way Earth's gravity was what it is now when dinosaurs walked the Earth. The only way to explain their size is through a change in gravity. And the only way to explain a change in gravity is by the electric model of gravity proposed by Thornhill.

The Rosetta mission may indeed live up to its name - a Rosetta stone pointing the way toward a real history of the Earth and a new electric cosmological theory.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
"Surprises" are the hallmark of a bad theory.

Not at all. Surprises are the hallmark of genuine science, because science constantly discovers and learns. Has the EU had any surprises, or any corrections to its model of the universe? If not, then it's probably not genuine science but more like a religion with absolute, unshakable truths.

The comet is pitch black, darker than charcoal, and no ice has been detected on its surface.

Not detected yet. Rosetta hasn't moved in for close-up observations yet. The mostly iceless, dark surface of comets is part of the mainstream model, by the way. With every passage around the Sun, a comet's surface becomes more depleted in frozen volatiles, and also experiences the effects of solar radiation: www2.ess.ucla.edu...

-I predicted the pitch black body.

So did the mainstream model

-I predicted the solid rocky cratered surface.

We currently have no information whether the surface is completely solid (it may be porous and filled with fine dust) or whether it's rocky (it may be ice covered with fine dust and hydrocarbons).

-I predicted it would be devoid of ice.

They haven't found large patches of ice, but it's too early to say that there is no ice on the surface at all.

-I predicted the lack of observed jets, even though the probe is detecting oxygen and hydrogen in the comet’s coma right now.

Then you haven't seen ESA's recent blog where jets are visible: blogs.esa.int...
Jets were visible quite a while ago in over-exposed Navcam images.

So if I can predict these things, why is the ESA “surprised” by what is being returned by the Rosetta probe?

Anyone can predict stuff based on some crazy theory, and occasionally be correct. The difference is, the mainstream scientists are performing science, making discoveries, and learning from all of that. Are the EU authors doing anything apart from barking at the mainstream scientists and saying "we told you so, it proves our theory"?

Why do they keep insisting that comets are dirty melting snowballs when every single piece of evidence says this is not the case at all?

They aren't insisting on that. Comets are not snowballs, neither they are melting. They are bodies with a mix of mineral dust and frozen volatiles, like all other bodies in the outer Solar System.

There is one other interesting fact about Chury. Chury's apparent mass is so low that, if it were placed into an ocean, it would float.

Which, given the comet's size, means it can't be solid rock. The comet's overall density is slightly more than that of cork.

If the CONSERT experiment on board Rosetta is successful, I predict it will return results indicating the comet is solid rock. If the comet is found to be solid rock, it would confirm EU's prediction of the Earth having a lower gravity field during the time of the dinosaurs.

What does the Earth's supposed lower gravity in the past have to do with this comet's mass and density?

a reply to: wildespace

Because this:



Is actually a cork.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Rather strange, some would say, that this comet and several others all bear a striking similarity to the satellites of Mars, Phobos and Deimos. Neither of which does conventional science want to attribute to be former asteroids. They take that position because of the virtually impossibility that tiny Mars could attract and capture in such fine obits not just one, but two wayward asteroids.

And then you must ask if you are interested in the topic, exactly why the grooves of Phobos have not been exactly explained? Oh, wait, we have ventured into the controlled areas of science where facts are of lesser importance than agendas.

a reply to: Aliensun

Yeah, EU theorists are all over Phobos.

As you point out, Phobos is an "impossible" moon.

One other interesting fact about Phobos is that it has a massive crater on its surface. According to impact theory, the impact that created that crater should have vaporized the moon. Of course, EU theory says the crater was electrically machined and not the result of an impact.

I think Talbot covers this in the Lightning Scarred Planet Mars documentary:

www.youtube.com...

In terms of density, it well could be. As a matter of fact, to me it looks nothing like a stony asteroid, and more like a badly eroded and cratered chunk (or two chunks stuck together) of dusty ice. Note the sharp edges and crags, as well as thin, seemingly fragile structures - they are a hallmark of ice. All rocky surfaces I have ever seen look very different.

To me, this comet looks nothing like a chunk of solid rock blasted out of some planet, but everything like an aggregate of outer Solar System's raw material come together through accretion.

But these are subjective observations. Let's wait for more detailed results from Rosetta and its lander.

originally posted by: wildespace
In terms of density, it well could be. As a matter of fact, to me it looks nothing like a stony asteroid, and more like a badly eroded and cratered chunk (or two chunks stuck together) of dusty ice. Note the sharp edges and crags, as well as thin, seemingly fragile structures - they are a hallmark of ice.

They are the hallmarks of electrically machined craters. If they were made out of ice, we should see some in the spectrogrpahic data. As the OP notes, we don't see any ice.

I'm all about waiting to see what happens. I'm confident EU theory will only be further vindicated as more time passes.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

It keeps them hoping and funding an idea of creation which is possibly suspect......or keeps a lot of clever scientists in jobs......

I just wish an Alien would reveal itself and we could stop wasting time and resources....

Regards

PDUK

a reply to: wildespace

They aren't insisting on that. Comets are not snowballs, neither they are melting. They are bodies with a mix of mineral dust and frozen volatiles, like all other bodies in the outer Solar System.


There is one other interesting fact about Chury. Chury's apparent mass is so low that, if it were placed into an ocean, it would float.

Which, given the comet's size, means it can't be solid rock. The comet's overall density is slightly more than that of cork.


If the CONSERT experiment on board Rosetta is successful, I predict it will return results indicating the comet is solid rock. If the comet is found to be solid rock, it would confirm EU's prediction of the Earth having a lower gravity field during the time of the dinosaurs.

What does the Earth's supposed lower gravity in the past have to do with this comet's mass and density?

The current observations point to a composition of mechanically stable, coherent material. It's the only way to get the dog bone shape and sharp stable escarpments. The surface is darker than coal, probably indicating it's fried by something. The density is lower than water. There is a mineral morphology that explains all this. Pumice. I said it and I'll say it again for the record, PUMICE.

The current cometary model must find ices of some kind or it must die. If (When) they don't find ices of ANY KIND. The ice and dust based model, must die.