Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[jonesdave116]

Yeah well done!!


but Rosetta's orbit to 67P was a catch up one and why would they not use the Go-Onto-Target system using off the shelf military system, the Target tracker (67P) Missile tracker (Rosetta Probe) Guidance computer( using the star tracker)

Get the probe to near enough the the target, 67P, then let the tracking computer make adjustments in real time. No radio lag from earth to probe return comms, just one way to let u know how it went, for instance jonesdave116,

Lukraak_Sisser Or are you implying they did (the flight planners) one calculation and sent it on its way??? No OCM's

You're completely missing the point. Deliberately or otherwise. They put the probe into a stable (hopefully) orbit, based on the gravity expected from their measurements. If that data were wrong, the orbit would decay. "Hey, we're supposed to be 20km from this thing, but we keep getting closer, and the jets keep having to fire to keep us at 20km. Why is this?"
Think they might have noticed this, whether the jets are firing automatically, or due to commands sent from Earth. There are always going to be minor adjustments needed, possibly due to drag as the comet becomes more active, and the fact that this is a non-spherical body, but those are probably allowed for in the calculations, and would be minor. They would have noticed a change in gravity of 400-600%. It's a non-argument.
See the article here: rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov/news/determining-mass-comet-67p/c-g
Now, as per that article, if the craft had been perturbed by a greater gravity, and therefore mass, that would have been noticed and the calculations of the aforesaid would have reflected it. They've thrown an apple at the comet and seen by how much the apple is attracted to the comet. Just as you can measure gravity on Earth. Said apple did not use thrusters to falsify the data to fit a pet theory.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're completely missing the point. Deliberately or otherwise. They put the probe into a stable (hopefully) orbit, based on the gravity expected from their measurements. If that data were wrong, the orbit would decay. "Hey, we're supposed to be 20km from this thing, but we keep getting closer, and the jets keep having to fire to keep us at 20km. Why is this?"

Nitpick: if the mass is wrong, the orbit won't decay, it will just be elliptical (you need drag for the orbit to actually decay). But if you try to maintain a constant distance at the wrong velocity for a circular orbit (because you got the mass wrong), then you will indeed need to continually fire thrusters.

Otherwise, quite correct: estimate the mass, attempt to establish an orbit, if your mass is wrong, you'll end up in a different orbit than what you expected. The bigger the mass difference, the bigger the orbit difference. The magnitude error in mass that Sol requires would be impossible to miss.

 

[jonesdave116]

Nitpick: if the mass is wrong, the orbit won't decay, it will just be elliptical (you need drag for the orbit to actually decay). But if you try to maintain a constant distance at the wrong velocity for a circular orbit (because you got the mass wrong), then you will indeed need to continually fire thrusters.

Otherwise, quite correct: estimate the mass, attempt to establish an orbit, if your mass is wrong, you'll end up in a different orbit than what you expected. The bigger the mass difference, the bigger the orbit difference. The magnitude error in mass that Sol requires would be impossible to miss.

Agreed. Had two tabs open looking at drag and mass calcs. Thanks for the peer review

 

[Dancing David]

I suggest that unless the proponents of the Electric Comet theory begin more reasonable discussion that the thread be moved to CT.

 

[Reality Check]

First, why the hell would they use terrestrial guidance programs for extra-terrestrial navigation?

And why does Sol88 rely on a old (January 18, 2014) magazine article that starts off so badly!

The European Space Agency’s Rosetta orbiter has been exploring Mars and several comets for the better part of 10 years.

Rosetta flew by Mars and a couple of asteroids.
However there is a nice graphic in the article which illustrates how bad Sol88's fantasy about gravity is. Not only did Rosetta get to 67P, it did several things on the way that Sol88 should think is impossible:

• March 4, 2005: Earth slingshot
• Feb. 25, 2007: Mars slingshot
• Nov. 13 2007: Earth slingshot
• Sept. 5, 2008: asteroid 2867 Šteins flyby
• Nov. 13 2009: Earth slingshot
• July 10, 2010: asteroid 21 Lutetia flyby

How is it possible that the Rosetta spacecraft got back to Earth three times or got close to Mars and 2 asteroids without people noticing the electric universe effects !
How it is possible that the Rosetta spacecraft did not turn into a comet during this travelling through the Suns electric field !

The Rosetta: Deep space manoeuvres part of the Wikipedia article also has details of the trajectory.

 

[BazBear]

How is it possible that the Rosetta spacecraft got back to Earth three times or got close to Mars and 2 asteroids without people noticing the electric universe effects !
How it is possible that the Rosetta spacecraft did not turn into a comet during this travelling through the Suns electric field !

And notwithstanding Rosetta, as well the dozens of space missions that have flown through or in the inner solar system, I have a hard time believing that the 24 men who travelled out of Earth's magnetosphere, and to the moon, wouldn't have noticed their Apollo spacecraft had grown a tail.

 

[Sol88]

The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy.[3] In SI units, the 2010 CODATA-recommended value of the gravitational constant (with standard uncertainty in parentheses) is:[4]

with relative standard uncertainty 1.2×10−4.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#cite_note-2010_CODATA-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#cite_note-2010_CODATA-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#cite_note-2010_CODATA-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#cite_note-2010_CODATA-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#cite_note-2010_CODATA-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#cite_note-2010_CODATA-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#cite_note-2010_CODATA-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#cite_note-2010_CODATA-4

 

[Sol88]

So it's little bit variable the CONSTANT!

 

[jonesdave116]

So it's little bit variable the CONSTANT!

Yep, that's 1.2/10000. Or 0.00012. Going to need a bit more than that, I'm afraid. Earth's gravity variations comfortably outstrip that level.

 

[dasmiller]

So it's little bit variable the CONSTANT!

The fact that the value for g is not perfectly known does not imply that it's variable.

 

[hecd2]

The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy. In SI units, the 2010 CODATA-recommended value of the gravitational constant (with standard uncertainty in parentheses) is:

with relative standard uncertainty 1.2×10−4

I've been lurking on this thread, constantly fascinated and entertained by the absurd lengths the EU proponents will go to in order to support their nonsense, but this takes the biscuit and I can't resist posting.

In order to demonstrate that the mainstream is fundamentally uncertain about gravity so that he can attempt to refute the devastating point that the mainstream navigates spacecraft with exquisite precision while completely ignoring the claims of the EU fantasists, Sol copies and pastes from Wikipedia. And what does Wikipedia state in the very quote that he uses to make his point? It says that the standard uncertainty in the measurement of the gravitational constant (=6.67384Nm^2/kg^2) is 0.0008Nm^2/kg^2 or a little over one part in 10,000.

It's seems inconceivable that Sol actually understands what he has copied and pasted.

 

[jonesdave116]

I've been lurking on this thread, constantly fascinated and entertained by the absurd lengths the EU proponents will go to in order to support their nonsense, but this takes the biscuit and I can't resist posting.

In order to demonstrate that the mainstream is fundamentally uncertain about gravity so that he can attempt to refute the devastating point that the mainstream navigates spacecraft with exquisite precision while completely ignoring the claims of the EU fantasists, Sol copies and pastes from Wikipedia. And what does Wikipedia state in the very quote that he uses to make his point? It says that the standard uncertainty in the measurement of the gravitational constant (=6.67384Nm^2/kg^2) is 0.0008Nm^2/kg^2 or a little over one part in 10,000.

It's seems inconceivable that Sol actually understands what he has copied and pasted.

Equations. Maths. Not a strong point of EU. Looks like rock = rock, is about as complicated as they get.

 

[Reality Check]

The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy. ...

So what, Sol88?
The fact is that the gravitational constant is known accurately enough to send spacecraft all over the Solar System, do precise calculations of orbits, etc.

Except that it is a lie that "So it's little bit variable the CONSTANT", Sol88. As you stated G is "difficult to measure with high accuracy", not variable.

 

[Sol88]

Well how constant is the universal constant of the big G

Strength of gravity shifts – and this time it's serious

Measurements of G are notoriously unreliable, so the constant is in permanent flux and the official value is an average. However, the recent deviation is particularly puzzling, as it is at once starkly different to the official value and yet very similar to a measurement made back in 2001, not what you would expect if the discrepancy was due to random experimental errors.

snip

According to Isaac Newton, the gravitational attraction between two objects is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of distance between them. G puts an absolute value on the attraction.

snip

But the latest result could also be evidence that gravity itself may be changing.

"Logically, either some of the experiments are wrong, or G is not constant," says Mark Kasevich of Stanford University.

An oscillating G could be evidence for a particular theory that relates dark energy to a fifth, hypothetical fundamental force, in addition to the four we know – gravity, electromagnetism, and the two nuclear forces. This force might also cause the strength of gravity to oscillate, says Padilla. "This result is indeed very intriguing."

snip

"If the value of G is slightly bigger, then we have to go back and redo all the calculations," she says. "Stars would burn up quicker than we previously thought because it takes more energy to push against a stronger gravitational force."

redo all the calculations??? including mass/density calculation???

so yeah I DON'T UNDERSTAND GRAVITY!

But it seems it may be quite variable, surprisingly!

and if the density is correct and the minerals observed coming(and sampled) are more or less rock and the comets hard (bouncing lander, MUPUS drilling) even PUMICE doesn't cut the mustard!

 

[Sol88]

So if comet 67P is, as it looks, a dusty rock....the big G must be called into question.

Chances of that happening and insulting the grand Poo-bah of modern physics are buckly's and puck all.

So, ad hoc away....again

 

[Reality Check]

So if comet 67P is, as it looks, a dusty rock....the big G must be called into question. ...

So a couple of delusions spun from 6 years of continued ignorance, Sol88?
The first delusion is your usual one about comet images looking like rock = comets are rock - next you are going to claim that clouds are made of candy floss !
Electric comets still do not exist !

The new delusion is that G is called into doubt because you have the delusion that comets are rock!

 

[Sol88]

So what, Sol88?
The fact is that the gravitational constant is known accurately enough to send spacecraft all over the Solar System, do precise calculations of orbits, etc.

Except that it is a lie that "So it's little bit variable the CONSTANT", Sol88. As you stated G is "difficult to measure with high accuracy", not variable.

Sure 'ol mate

Orbital Correction Burns play no part at all?

Gravity is only of a minor concern...

see HERE for all the maths you'll need to send a probe to point any where in space including Mars

First, Earth's gravity will bend the trajectory of any spaceship launched from here. To remove that factor assume the rocket has already been placed in a distant orbit around Earth, where Earth's gravity is weak and orbital motion is slow, allowing both to be neglected. In actual orbit planning they must always be taken into account as a correction.

 

[Sol88]

So a couple of delusions spun from 6 years of continued ignorance, Sol88?
The first delusion is your usual one about comet images looking like rock = comets are rock - next you are going to claim that clouds are made of candy floss !
Electric comets still do not exist !

The new delusion is that G is called into doubt because you have the delusion that comets are rock!

Sorry RC for being so dense

but why again is 67P not a rock?

 

[Reality Check]

Well how constant is the universal constant of the big G...

Followed by ignorance about basic science, Sol88.
G is a constant because G appears as a proportionality constant in Newton's law of gravitation.
That does not mean that its value is measured as the same in every experiment.
Strength of gravity shifts – and this time it's serious is scientists speculating on the value of G changing with time or that it s official value is incorrect. Note the total absence of the word comet

Snipped the delusion that comets are stars, Sol88. !

You end with a new delusion that "minerals" have been sampled and a lie about "more or less rock", Sol88 .
No "more or less rock" has been found on any comet. Ices and dust have been found on comets.
The minerals that have been found in comet dust are consistent with interplanetary dust.

 

[Reality Check]

Sorry RC for being so dense...

Do not be sorry about falling for the Thunderbolts delusions - the inability to even read and understand basic science for the last 6 years means that you can fall for any gibberish that is out there, Sol88.
Electric comets still do not exist !