The Electric Comet theory

[Sol88]

Perhaps I missed the significance of the 0.4 g/cm^3 in my short absence, but as far as I'm aware, this is far less dense than rock and less dense even than water, which would rather strengthen the case for the "dirty snowball" and not an electrically charged rock.

Which is the problem, the comet IS a fluffy snowbank!!!

Just look at the Deep Impact Mission, poof straight into a powdered snow bank of refractory minerals, clays, limestone, tholins...etc etc and no ICE.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Which is the problem, the comet IS a fluffy snowbank!!!

Just look at the Deep Impact Mission, poof straight into a powdered snow bank of refractory minerals, clays, limestone, tholins...etc etc and no ICE.

It's still not an electric rock.

 

[ferd burfle]

Looks like another nail for the whipplelites!

0.4g/cm3 density and no voids, according to CONCERT data.

So here we are at almost 100 pages and all the ech folks have to offer is the same old god-of-the-gaps false dichotomies. Any discrepancy, real or imagined, in the real science makes their electrophilic pareidolia (thanks W.T.!) true. No coherent narrative or theory of their own, just picking at nits in the real science. Just like the creationists who claim a factor of 2 difference in two potassium-argon datings of a Grand Canyon stratum means their 10e6 younger date must be right.

Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was...

 

[thedopefishlives]

So here we are at almost 100 pages and all the ech folks have to offer is the same old god-of-the-gaps false dichotomies. Any discrepancy, real or imagined, in the real science makes their electrophilic pareidolia (thanks W.T.!) true. No coherent narrative or theory of their own, just picking at nits in the real science. Just like the creationists who claim a factor of 2 difference in two potassium-argon datings of a Grand Canyon stratum means their 10e6 younger date must be right.

Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was...

And this is what has me scratching my head. The density of rock is quite a bit greater than that of water. So the fact that the comet is less dense than water means it's ... a rock? That makes absolutely no sense in any universe in which there are rocks, water, and comets.

 

[ben m]

No coherent narrative or theory of their own, just picking at nits in the real science.

Sol88 isn't even picking nits, he's pretending to pick nits. His posts all sound like this:

Data from the comet shows X.

Makes you think.

There is an electric field on the Moon!

Comets are electric!

I mean, "picking nits" would at least require some sort of coherent statement. "Rosetta found X <link> which contradicts prediction Y made by Z <link>". Or "Yesterday Rosetta said 4 g/cm^3 and today they said 4.1 g/cm^3". Or "Rosetta replaced the image in that press release with a new one." That'd be picking nits. Sol88 can't even manage that.

 

[dasmiller]

deleted

 

[Sol88]

Sol88 isn't even picking nits, he's pretending to pick nits. His posts all sound like this:



I mean, "picking nits" would at least require some sort of coherent statement. "Rosetta found X <link> which contradicts prediction Y made by Z <link>". Or "Yesterday Rosetta said 4 g/cm^3 and today they said 4.1 g/cm^3". Or "Rosetta replaced the image in that press release with a new one." That'd be picking nits. Sol88 can't even manage that.

Nit pick??? data says 67P is fluffy like snow according to the density and MUPUS says hard as (sintered ice) or rock??? as well as the lander "bouncing" off the surface.

CONCERT says no voids.

You have dust levitating and being transported by electric fields but feel the need to invoke fluidization by gas escaping.

Yo have CO, CO2 and H20 being produced in the same location during different times of the local day from a comet made of rock.

and it looks like rock (including crystallised silicates, clay and carbonates) with no surface ice detected, "How did clay and carbonates form in frozen comets?"...mainstream brushed over that chestnut.

Major problems reconciling the problem of heat transportation below the dust layer to start "sublimation"

Dust that "falls" apart but towering cliffs on the surface.


but yeah the dirtysnowball is the best guess mainstream could come up with.

As the posters on the ROSETTA BLOG site are asking, some non EU proponents are calling the standard theory into question.

and i think that's a good thing, we need to ask those hard questions.

The mainstream went to the comet with well defined preconceived ideas and have been surprised at every turn but to think of another theory is taboo.

AND

It's not my job to prove to you the ELECTRIC COMET is correct you can make your own mind up based on the multitude of data not agreeing with the standard model. If you think they're dirtysnowballs, dirtysnowballs they are.

 

[thedopefishlives]

It's not my job to prove to you the ELECTRIC COMET is correct you can make your own mind up based on the multitude of data not agreeing with the standard model. If you think they're dirtysnowballs, dirtysnowballs they are.

That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works.

Here's your problem: You have this "multitude of data", but none of it proves electric space rocks. All it does is disagree slightly with predictions that were made in a time before hard data existed - which was the entire point of sending a spacecraft out to investigate the comet in the first place. Now that we can refine the models, they STILL don't point to an electric space rock. You're welcome to believe they are electric space rocks, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Sol88]

Here's your problem: You have this "multitude of data", but none of it proves electric space rocks. All it does is disagree slightly with predictions that were made in a time before hard data existed - which was the entire point of sending a spacecraft out to investigate the comet in the first place. Now that we can refine the models, they STILL don't point to an electric space rock. You're welcome to believe they are electric space rocks, but that doesn't make it so.

Just this simple piece of dicordent data is enough to raise serous doubts about the standard model.

Results (12) This means that the stuff is really hard! A very interesting finding, not visible from orbit!

Results (15) Surface must be >2 MPa hard! The comet remains surprising bizarre and uncooperative

LINK

“We found that the dust particles released first when the comet started to become active again are ‘fluffy’. They don’t contain ice, but they do contain a lot of sodium. We have found the parent material of interplanetary dust particles,” says lead author Rita Schulz of ESA’s Scientific Support Office.

LINK


So what's the mainstream fudge for this data.

It's a hard fluffy gasball????

 

[LSSBB]

Just this simple piece of dicordent data is enough to raise serous doubts about the standard model.



LINK

LINK


So what's the mainstream fudge for this data.

It's a hard fluffy gasball????

Does hardness = density?

 

[rwguinn]

Does hardness = density?

Lead--Steel
gold--Aluminum
Hmmmm. A trend?

Nope. Watched a guy make a hammer out of Mercury, with the aid of a little LN₂

 

[Sol88]

Does hardness = density?

Yeah doesn't wash though.

You tell me what known substance on the comet could have the density less than water (He said the interior is now thought to be analogous to 'ash, cigarette ash or super-dry powder snow.') and harder than 2mpa??


Who's telling porkys?? the MUPUS team or me 'ol mate Holger??


Which is a far cry from

All it does is disagree slightly with predictions that were made in a time before hard data existed

You'll have to take your foot off the exaggerator! That's no slight disagreement with predictions, that's fatal. Not one prediction, from the mainstream point of view, has held out. They are morphing into a totally different model that now incorporates a lot of what the EU mob have been banging on about for some time.

I guess that's what science does but why trumpet it and puff up your chest that you know what comets are???? Ambition the short film is embarrassing to watch now, really cringe worthy. We know this we know that but in reality it was just a guess that turned out to be dead wrong.

and whilst I acknowledge there are paper on comets and plasma/electrical interaction they played no part in ANY prediction put up on a science education website NASA,ESA etc

Seems it was a SURPRISE for the big bangers, the original creationists.

This thread has got long and unwieldy, so a new continuation thread has been opened HERE. The split point is arbitrary, and please feel free to quote from this thread into the new one.

Posted By: Agatha