Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[Reality Check]

Look it up: Mainstream vs Electric Universe

Sorry, Sol88, but the usual dependence on a bunch of cranks and even liars demand that I point out who you are ignorantly citing yet again.

The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc.
We must thank Haig again for pointing out so much crackpottery!

Food for thought, Sol88:
How can we believe in the competence of the EU proponents (including you ) when the speakers at their 2014 conference was a collection of cranks, actual deluded people and some electrical engineers?
(the deluded people were the Velikovsky believers: David Talbott, Daniel Jencka, Dwardu Cardona)

 

[jonesdave116]

Comet 67P. Density: 470 kg/m^3. Please explain.
Doesn't get any better, does it Sol, when the vast majority of EU acolytes can't do maths? Including the high priests upon whose every word you hang.
Have a look at Scott's electric sun model, or Thornhill's; neither would get past peer review, not due to bias, but due to sheer incompetency in mathematics. No wonder Thornhill's university kicked him out. Guy is a waster. Ditto Scott, who invokes all these electrons flowing in, but can't explain where they're coming from (based on Voyager data), can't explain why we can't detect them, despite having loads of satellites capable of doing so, and can't explain why they aren't having an effect on the planets, satellites and humans that they must surely be going through.
It's a pseudo-science Sol, and the sooner you realise it the better.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, then we have a conundrum! Your not very dense comet is made of bloody hard, fine, dry, dust!

Well actually we have a lie, Sol88: 67P is made up of "bloody hard" ices and dust.
And more ignorance: This is nothing to do with the relative error in G.

The Rosetta/Philae mission to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

The MUPUS instrument -- which was designed to drill a hole into the surface and retrieve samples -- wasn't able to drill properly, due to the lack of power and the lander's tilted position on the surface. However, MUPUS was able to measure the temperature and thermal properties of the surface near the landing site. The MUPUS team reports that the surface of the comet consists of a crusty layer of dusty ice, perhaps 10-20 cm thick; below that crust, the material likely grows more fluffy. The SESAME instrument supported this conclusion by determining that the surface strength was high, and the water content was also high.

 

[ben m]

I'm long since ignoring this thread, but I had a funny realization.

Sol88 thinks Rosetta is being "repelled" from the comet by a huge electrostatic force that juuuuuust so happens to counteract 80% of the gravitational attraction. Which means that the charge on Rosetta is juuuuuuuuust right given Rosetta's mass. How lucky? Like, this: Rosetta is charged up to about 10V and has a charge-to-mass ratio of 6 pC/kg. If the EUers were right about the giant electric field, then Rosetta would have been electrostatically repelled from the comet---entirely unable to orbit---if it had come in with 12.5V and 8pC/kg. Close one!

More importantly: you know what happens when a 100 kg lander detaches from a 2600 kg spaceship? Like, say, Philae detaching from Rosetta? Well, Philae's capacitance is something like 40% of Rosetta's. When two isolated conductors are separated, the available charge gets distributed between them. The details are complicated but to first order Philae carried off about 3 nC of charge ... giving it five times the charge-to-mass ratio of Rosetta.

So the EU ultra-high-voltage-comet hypothesis predicts that Philae will detach from Rosetta and zoom directly away from the comet under those electrostatic repulsive forces. They say those forces are holding up 80% of Rosetta's weight, so clearly they're holding up 400% of Philae's, so "Philae will zoom away" sounds like a pretty clear prediction.

Wait, what's that? Philae descended to the comet already? Uh-oh.

 

[Sol88]

Sorry, Sol88, but the usual dependence on a bunch of cranks and even liars demand that I point out who you are ignorantly citing yet again.

The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc.
We must thank Haig again for pointing out so much crackpottery!

Food for thought, Sol88:
How can we believe in the competence of the EU proponents (including you ) when the speakers at their 2014 conference was a collection of cranks, actual deluded people and some electrical engineers?
(the deluded people were the Velikovsky believers: David Talbott, Daniel Jencka, Dwardu Cardona)

You funny

Sorry should have included the date of those PREDICTIONS

Feb 17, 2006
Deep Impact—Where’s the Water? (3)
A Unified Explanation of “Water” Production

When did you're bang on gravity based navigation probe enter orbit??

When did OSIRIS start returning data?

GIADA data implied?

Sublimation vs cathode sputtering

Surprise vs prediction

but yeah whatever

 

[Sol88]

Well actually we have a lie, Sol88: 67P is made up of "bloody hard" ices and dust.
And more ignorance: This is nothing to do with the relative error in G.

The Rosetta/Philae mission to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

the material likely grows more fluffy.

Likely???? why likely?

Oh, because your comet is only 470 kg/m^3

 

[Reality Check]

Comets Are Like Deep Fried Ice Cream, Scientists Say

...
Cirikey! Hang on

Crikey, are you ignorant enough to think that a reporter is a scientist - that "rock and ice" is the reporters words, Sol88 !
No scientist would be dumb enough to say that comets are "rock and ice" because they know that only dust and ices have been detected on comets.

 

[Reality Check]

Likely???? why likely?

Oh, because your comet is only 470 kg/m^3

Well Duh Sol88, our oh so boggled EC delusion proponent !

Maybe your ignorance extends to being unable to understand that you cited was the Holy Grail of the EU universe - an empirical experiment done in la lab here on Earth that applies to space !
Comets Are Like Deep Fried Ice Cream, Scientists Say

NASA researchers think they understand why comets have a hard, crispy outside and a cold but soft inside — just like fried ice cream.
...
In the experiment, the amorphous ice is mixed with an organic molecule called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, which, according to the press release, are common in deep space. As the researchers turned up the temperature, surprising things started to happen.

"The PAHs stuck together and were expelled from the ice host as it crystallized," Antti Lignell, a postdoctoral scholar at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena and lead author in the new study, said in the statement. "This may be the first observation of molecules clustering together due to a phase transition of ice, and this certainly has many important consequences for the chemistry and physics of ice."

With the PAHs expelled, the now-purified ice was free to form a dense, crispy outer shell around the body of the comet. Inside, the ultracold, somewhat fluffy amorphous ice remains.

"Deep fried ice cream is really the perfect analogy, because the interior of the comets should still be very cold and contain the more porous, amorphous ice," said Gudipati.

The PAHs, meanwhile, come together to form a final layer on top of the crunchy outer shell, Gudipati said. "The organics are like a final layer of chocolate on top."

 

[jonesdave116]

Sorry, Sol88, but the idea that spacecraft are comets because they are known to charge up is just totally ignorant about what comets are. But then we already know that you are that ignorant about comets, e.g. the 6 years of denial of the multiple techniques of measuring their density.

Fair play RC, we know the spacecraft is charged. To between -5 & -10 volts Which, with a pretty good estimate for the capacitance, and the volume of the comet, etc, etc, leads us to the conclusion that the comet has a charge of > 10 000 Coulombs, and a voltage of > 100 Gigavolts. This seems somewhat unlikely, I would have thought. Given that this rules out electrical repulsion as the reason for 67P having a measured density of 470 kg/m^3, and Sol's discovery of the fact that G might have a discrepancy of around only 1 part in 10 000, then I think we are safe in saying that the density of comet 67P is, in fact, 470 kg/m^3.
Again, I implore anyone to show that this comet is in fact rock, with a density of > 2000 kg/m^3.
Haere ra, and goodnight.

 

[ben m]

More basic physics:

The EUers insist that the comet is exerting a huge electrostatic force on the comet---which is to say they think there's a 100,000 volt-per-meter electric field acting on the comet's tiny charge.

Rosetta isn't a sphere, though, it's got 24m long conductors (solar panels) sticking out of it. A conducting object in an electric field will polarize---its internal charge distribution will respond to the external field, and charge will rearrange until all conducting surfaces are equipotentials. For an elongated object, that turns the object into an electric dipole. Electric dipoles feel *torque* in electric fields. In the EU high-voltage-comet hypothesis, let's use EU's supposed favorite topic---standard Earth-laboratory-E&M---and find the torque on Rosetta.

For a conducting *sphere* this is a simple college E&M problem. For a rod it's harder but dimensional analysis will work. The magnitude of the induced dipole depends on the amount of charge separated (proportional to E*epsilon0 and two factors with units of length) and the distance it separates (another length, definitely the long dimension) and the torque on the dipole depends on another factor of E. To be super-conservative, we'll use the shortest dimensions that make any sense---so

torque = E^2 epsilon0 * length * width^2

which tells us that Rosetta will have a ~2 Newton-meter torque that keeps its long axis pointed at the comet. Far, far beyond the ability of Rosetta's thrusters or reaction wheels to counteract. Trivially detectable because Rosetta will obviously fail (unable to point cameras, losing its comm link with Earth, etc.) as soon as it enters orbit.

What's that? Rosetta is *already* orbiting happily and able to orient itself as planned? Whoops, that rules out the giant electric field hypothesis. Nice try guys.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Ah, but ben_m, all your fancy physics does not matter.
See, if actual electrical knowledge is applied to the EU, then it fails at every single step.

So clearly space electricity must behave according to different rules, in the same way that space gravity must be different from earth gravity. And at the same time this space electricty recognizes things from earth, because it leaves the electronics on board our spacecraft alone.

I mean, the claim that cometary tails are lightning alone violates at least two know things about how lightning forms.
1: There would never be a charge build up as there is nothing impeding free ions to move away from the comet.
2: There is no medium to heat up and cause the visible lightning effect.

That's the thing that always surpises me really, how EU proponents not even understand the physics of electromagnetism, even though that is the core of their belief.

 

[Matthew Cline]

So clearly space electricity must behave according to different rules, in the same way that space gravity must be different from earth gravity.

An alternative would be to go on a conspiracy-theory route: having realized that the EC theory was correct, but not wanting to admit it, those designing Rosetta designed it to work with an EC, then lied about its design to make it look like the comet isn't electrical.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

An alternative would be to go on a conspiracy-theory route: having realized that the EC theory was correct, but not wanting to admit it, those designing Rosetta designed it to work with an EC, then lied about its design to make it look like the comet isn't electrical.

True true, it could be that every single person working with electricity for the past 200 or so years has been in secret conspiracy to prevent the secret from getting out because reasons.
And only now do a select few youtubers dare to bring that out in the open.

Given that EU physics seems to predict a clean, nearly infinite, easily tapped powersource I'm surpised they are stuck to making bad videos. If I'd discovered that secret I'd be running a global corporation outcompeting all energy companies in the world. But to each his own I guess.

 

[Matthew Cline]

True true, it could be that every single person working with electricity for the past 200 or so years has been in secret conspiracy to prevent the secret from getting out because reasons.

It would only have to involve the designers of Rosetta: give Rosetta more powerful thrusters than the public is told about, more fuel, more powerful reaction wheels, a method to pump charge between Rosetta and Philae before they disconnected, and so on. Of course, such a conspiracy would still involve too many people to pull off, but it would still be vastly much smaller than what you outlined.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

It would only have to involve the designers of Rosetta: give Rosetta more powerful thrusters than the public is told about, more fuel, more powerful reaction wheels, a method to pump charge between Rosetta and Philae before they disconnected, and so on. Of course, such a conspiracy would still involve too many people to pull off, but it would still be vastly much smaller than what you outlined.

I disagree with you there. The EC/EU theories are so totally incompatible with everything we know about electricity that if it were right, even high school teachers would have to be in on the conspiracy.
After all, the EC 'discharge' (the comet's tail) points AWAY from the object it interacts with according to the EU (the sun), whereas simple high school experiments only show discharges BETWEEN two objects. So for EU to be right, even that experiment needs to be faked.
On every high school.
In every country.
For 200 years or more.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, then we have a conundrum! Your not very dense comet is made of bloody hard, fine, dry, dust!

After finding out you were spectacularly wrong, that you had no clue about the very issue you introduced (the relative error in G), and demonstrating that even simple arithmetic (multiply two numbers) was beyond you... you still think the problem is with professional scientists, and not with you.

Well, you've got plenty of cheek.

 

[LSSBB]

After finding out you were spectacularly wrong, that you had no clue about the very issue you introduced (the relative error in G), and demonstrating that even simple arithmetic (multiply two numbers) was beyond you... you still think the problem is with professional scientists, and not with you.

Well, you've got plenty of cheek.

I think it would at least take two cheeks to produce what I have seen of EC theory, and probably several pairs.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

I think it would at least take two cheeks to produce what I have seen of EC theory, and probably several pairs.

“Oh, my God! Sol88 left a floater! In the name of all things sacred that is the most foul-smelling thing ever! Somebody flush it down!” – Austin Powers

 

[Haig]

I disagree with you there. The EC/EU theories are so totally incompatible with everything we know about electricity that if it were right, even high school teachers would have to be in on the conspiracy.
After all, the EC 'discharge' (the comet's tail) points AWAY from the object it interacts with according to the EU (the sun), whereas simple high school experiments only show discharges BETWEEN two objects. So for EU to be right, even that experiment needs to be faked.
On every high school.
In every country.
For 200 years or more.

I disagree with you there


Electric Comets requires an Electric Sun requires an Electric Universe

With more empirical science coming soon for an Electric Sun ...

SAFIRE—The Documentary (trailer)

Published on 24 May 2015
The premiere of "SAFIRE—The Documentary" will take place on Saturday evening, June 27, at the EU2015 Conference: Paths of Discovery, Phoenix Arizona. PLEASE SHARE THIS VIDEO. The SAFIRE Project is an experimental investigation of electric discharge behavior of an anode (positively charged electrode) in a vacuum chamber, with special attention to correlations between such discharge behavior and "anomalous" features of the Sun.

Members of the SAFIRE Project team will be presenting at the conference, including Montgomery Childs, Wal Thornhill, Dr. Donald Scott, Dr. Michael Clarage, Dr. Paul Anderson, Dr. Lowell Morgan and Jan Onderco

 

[BazBear]

I think it would at least take two cheeks to produce what I have seen of EC theory, and probably several pairs.

No matter how many pairs, it would seem most EU proponents are unable to find them with both hands.