The Electric Comet theory

[David Talbott]

Oh forget it Ben, they are not doing anything, David is just trolling.
They are waiting for mainstream researches to do something, and then they will twist the results to their own view.
IMHO David Talbott is the biggest disappointment that arrived at (JREF) ISF from thunder, I had expected a lot more.

Well, I guess we could have another argument here as to who's most disappointed Tusenfem.

Actually I think I win. It's not as if you've stuck your neck out with any meaningful predictions to counter the explicit predictions of the electric comet. In fact, looking over a single week of my participation here, it appears I've added quite a lot by comparison, and I'll begin posting the content on a Rosetta blog on the Thunderbolts site this coming week.

... But hold on. Now we see a claimed "announcement" of water on the surface. Therefore, before I have a chance to change my own prediction of NO WATER ICE ON THE SURFACE (beyond a trivial frost as on Tempel 1), here are my predictions as they stood just a couple of hours ago. Expect some modest changes, but no wholesale retractions based on new info.

• likelihood of a hot and dry surface ("hot," as in the familiar lexicon of comet science)
• no layers's of ice exposed beneath the surface, despite the requirements of standard theory
• no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active
• electric discharge as the essential contributor to the comet's increasing activity
• abundance of unexplained rocky debris on the surface, as seen on asteroids, including sharp edged boulders exhibiting no ices.
• visible electrical erosion of the surface in the fashion of electrical etching of surface materials and electric discharge machining (edm)
• surface electrochemically transformed and burned black by this discharge activity, as in laboratory experiments
• focused glow discharge enigmatically moving across the surface during the course of the Rosetta observations
• useful comparisons of this activity to the moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus
• electric fields configuring and reconfiguring layers of dust on the surface, despite the absence of an atmosphere
• removal of “astonishing,” complex crystalline molecules from the surface, with comparisons to materials on planets and moons, likely including Mars or Earth, or both.
• no appreciable “stardust,” the long-presumed primeval matter of comets
• no support for the long-presumed "compositional zoning" in textbook solar system history and comet theory
• useful comparison of dust configurations on the surface to formations seen in laboratory experiments with electric fields acting on layers of dust
• x-ray and ultraviolet emissions exceeding any scientific predictions just 20 years ago
• evidence for electrochemical production of hydroxyl and/or water by electrical action on surface silicates and clays
• evidence for production of water and/or hydroxyl by electrical activity in the coma
• unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus
• improbable hydrogen cloud gathered and held in place at the outer regions of the coma
• additional electrochemical transactions in the coma adding to diverse chemistry, ranging from CO2 to methane, alcohol, cyanide, and more
• relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts

Add the POSSIBILITY of a break-up of the nucleus in response to a solar outburst, though that’s not something I'd hang a hat on.

David Talbott

 

[LSSBB]

Okay, hold the presses again. Are the reports reading surface chemistry or the chemistry of the coma?

If there's water ice on the surface, I'll be the first to say that my prediction, along with those of several others, was DEAD WRONG. Our critics would have good cause to celebrate such a miscalculation on our part.

Well, since the article I linked to, which you apparently failed to read, was titled "THE QUEST FOR ORGANIC MOLECULES ON THE SURFACE OF 67P/C-G", my guess is...

It could be that the reason they haven't "Announced" finding ice is that no on but your posse would think finding ice on a comet is newsworthy.

 

[David Talbott]

Just a note to remind folks that, no matter how aggressive this conversation gets, I'll be very grateful for any additions—or proposed subtractions—from the list of predictions just posted.

 

[David Talbott]

Well, since the article I linked to, which you apparently failed to read, was titled "THE QUEST FOR ORGANIC MOLECULES ON THE SURFACE OF 67P/C-G", my guess is...
.

I read through the article the moment I saw you posted the url. Getting good references from critics, and getting them quickly, is why I'm here.

 

[D'rok]

Well, I guess we could have another argument here as to who's most disappointed Tusenfem.

Actually I think I win. It's not as if you've stuck your neck out with any meaningful predictions to counter the explicit predictions of the electric comet.

The intellectual dishonesty on display here is truly breathtaking. So, tusenfem, a cometary plasma physicist, has not "stuck his neck out with any meaningful predictions", eh? Published, refereed predictive papers don't count in EC fantasy-land I suppose, even when conveniently linked in replies to you.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10358490#post10358490

I guess he should have painted it on a cave wall.

 

[Haig]

Given that mainstream cosmology is guided by observations and EU nonsense isn't

Really! The gravity sums don't add up and manstream decide they have to add "the black arts" , black holes of various sizes, dark matter, dark energy ... making up 96% of the universe. Instead of by observation 99.9% of the Universe is plasma in a electromagnetic state.

(I mean seriously: Velikovsky?), that's an ironic accusation to make.

You're dismissing mathematical models as equivalent to mythology, yet you believe in a guy who bases his ideas on actual mythology.

"Believe" doesn't come into it.

You do know that ALL the ancient spiritual traditions / religions began as planet worship. Velikovsky's first book Worlds in Collision gives the reasons for that!

It's just facts and evidence and his successful predictions confirmed in the Space Age.

He, after all, predicted that Jupiter would be a source of radio noise, that Venus would have a high surface temperature, that the sun and bodies of the solar system would have large electrical charges and several other such predictions. Velikovsky argued that electromagnetic effects play an important role in celestial mechanics at a time when the dogma of the time denied any role for electromagnetic effects

His book (PDF) EARTH IN UPHEAVAL by Emmanuel Velikovsky was basically a list of the science of the day supporting his ideas.

More HERE

Getting back to Electric Comets ...

How about doing these calculations? HERE

What would be the scale of the electromagnetic effect if a much bigger Electric Comet , say the size of Mars, with a huge plasma sheath came into contact with the plasma sheath around the Earth ???

Can you imagine that? How about a maths calculation on the electromagnetic effect?

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: List of outstanding questions

1. Haig (30th June 2014): Why do EU supporters continue to claim that astronomers ignore E fields, etc.?
2. Haig (3 November 2014) supplied another example of this ignorance by a EU supporter posting on the Thunderbolts forum.
3. Haig (7th July 2014), is 3.0 different from 0.6?
4. Haig (7th July 2014), if you want to see many cases of delusional thinking and ignorance from an EU "expert" often citing other EU "experts" then have a look at the Thunderbolts picture of the day blog!
5. Haig (14th July 2014), How can you believe in the competence of the EU proponents 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 belivers: David Talbott, Daniel Jencka, Dwardu Cardona)?
6. Haig (3 November 2014): What is the density of comet 67P; What is the density of rock? Are they the same?
7. Plus any scientific answers to the science stated in Electric comets still do not exist!
8. Haig (3rd November 2014): Have you noted the 19 items of ignorance and delusion in the first 11 minutes (out of 90!) of a Thunderbolt video that you cited?
9. Haig (4th November 2014): Have you understood that Hyperion is an icy moon, not a rock (so why is it not a comet )?
10. Haig (20th November 2014): Can you understand the ignorance and delusions in that Thunderbolts video about Mars?
11. 24 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet predictions for the albedo of comet nuclei (actual numbers not fantasies!)
12. 24 November 2014 Haig: Can you understand that this ES "paper" is ignorant about and lies about astronomy?
13. 25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for density of comets, e.g. 67P.
    Start by showing that the electric field of the Sun does not make the real density of comets less than the gravitationally calculated values
14. 25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for the production of a coma and jets from 67P at some 250 million miles from the Sun and at a temp of 205-230K (surface) and 30-160k (subsurface).
15. 25 November 2014 Haig: Please cite the electric comet calculations for the production of organic compounds from 67P at some 250 million miles from the Sun and at a temp of 205-230K (surface) and 30-160k (subsurface).
16. 4 December 2014 Haig: Present the evidence that our variable Sun has changed 67P activity.
17. 5 December 2014 Haig: Please quote the section in [URL="http://iopscience.iop.org/0741-3335/41/3A/004"]Magnetic-field-aligned electric fields associated with Debye-scale plasma structures that measures or describes the potential drop between the corona and heliosphere.[/URL]
18. 5 December 2014 Haig: Please quote the section in [URL="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00793176"]Magnetosphere-ionosphere interactions —near-Earth manifestations of the plasma Universe that measures or describes the potential drop between the corona and heliosphere.[/URL]
19. 5 December 2014 Haig: Please quote the section in [URL="http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/adminstuff/webpubs/2001_prl_045003.pdf"]Direct Observation of Localized Parallel Electric Fields in a Space Plasma that measures or describes the potential drop between the corona and heliosphere.[/URL]

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Magnetic fields can exist without electric currents, e.g. light!!!!

Just a neat reminder that we are in a dynamic electric Sun-Earth connection that affects, not just us here on earth, but Electric Comets too.

Actually a neat reminder of the danger of imagining that random videos are science or relevant to the fantasies of to the electric sun or electric comet. Haig.

The Sun has had yet another M Class Solar Flare ! It is pretty. Small error from the narrator- we do not see the photosphere (the "surface") at 171A - we see light from plasma at temperatures between 160,000 K and 2 million K that is thousands of kilometers above the photosphere..

But then there is the fact about galactic magnetic fields being revealed by the Planck data and the reference to the crank Wal Thornhill.
The caption for the images he shows from the French Planck web site which he does not include is

Legend: maps of 30 by 30 degrees of signal polarized at 353 GHz. Color trace thermal dust emission while the reliefs draw the Galactic magnetic field.

This is standard astronomy.

Where there are magnetic fields you naturally have the electric currents...

Wrong, Haig - that is a plasmacosmology web site lie.

8 December 2014: Haig: Magnetic fields can exist without electric currents, e.g. light and ferromagnetism have no electric currents.

 

[Haig]

<snip>

[*]Haig (7th July 2014), is 3.0 different from 0.6?

<snip>

[*]Haig (3 November 2014): What is the density of comet 67P; What is the density of rock? Are they the same?

<snip>

Welcome back Reality Check

Here's a couple off your list answered yet AGAIN.

Why is it you NEVER delete them?

Does a density of 0.4 g/cm^3 mean 67P cannot be rock?
"No. imo it means the mainstream are failing to measure mass and therefore density correctly due to their assumptions that solar system bodies have no net charge and that only the force of gravity is responsible for orbits. For more detail see my post HERE"

 

[Reality Check]

Here's a couple off your list answered yet AGAIN.

Why is it you NEVER delete them?

Because wish fulfillment fantasies are not answer to anything, Haig !
What you and the web site cannot understand is

• The density of comets has been measures using multiple techniques. In fact one is missing from my list - thanks for reminding me Haig.
• Their fantasy goes both ways - it is also an argument for comets being lighter than they are measured !
• Comets and asteroids can have similar orbits - but asteroids do not show this imaginary effect.
• Main-belt comets exist!

 

[dasmiller]

Does a density of 0.4 g/cm^3 mean 67P cannot be rock?
"No. imo it means the mainstream are failing to measure mass and therefore density correctly due to their assumptions that solar system bodies have no net charge and that only the force of gravity is responsible for orbits. For more detail see my post HERE"

If the charge-per-mass is not consistent (as the link states), and if electrostatic effects on orbits are not small compared to gravity, then using different solar system bodies to calculate the sun's mass will give different values for the sun's mass, right?

 

[Reality Check]

Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids)

The electric comet idea states that comets are rocky bodies like asteroids.
For some reason EC proponents cannot grasp that the measured density of comet nuclei is ~0.6 g/cc, the measured density of asteroids is ~3.0 g/cc and that 0.6 is less than 3.0 .
They tend to reply by asserting the methods used to calculate the density of comets are flawed in some unknown way. They make this into a wish fulfillment fantasy by having the unknown flaws reduce the real density when these unknown flaws could just as well increase the real density.

The classic method that is used for both comets and asteroids or any planetary body.
Firstly calculate the mass of the body:

1. Measure the orbit of the body around the Sun to determine its semi-major axis (a) and period (P).
2. Plug this into Kepler's third law to get the mass (usually as a ratio to a known mass).

Next calculate the volume of the body. For closer bodies you can just look in a telescope. For further bodies you can measure radii as the body occludes stars. Generally comet nuclei and asteroids are modeled as ellipsoids.
Divide the mass by the volume to get the density.

A method for comets:
Jets observed to come from comets alter their orbits. This is the same physics used in rockets - throw mass away and the reaction will push the comet the other way.
This can be used to calculate their masses, e.g. see "Cometary masses derived from non-gravitational forces" by Sosa & Fernandez, 2009.

For the Tempel 1 comet:
The Deep Impact mission crashed an impactor into the nucleus of Tempel 1. The ejecta from this impact was used to calculate the mass of Tempel 1.
See "A ballistics analysis of the Deep Impact ejecta plume: Determining Comet Tempel 1's gravity, mass, and density" by Richardson, et al., 2007.

For a more general paper: "Size Distribution, Structure and Density of Cometary Nuclei" by Weissman & Lowry, 2006.

For 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: Use the RSI instrument on the Rosetta spacecraft to measure changes in the spacecraft trajectory caused by the mass of the comet. Use the OSIRIS to get accurate measurements of the comet dimensions and calculate the volume. Divide the numbers.

For 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: Not strictly a measurement of density but a demonstration that the comet is not rock - map the interior structure using radio waves that (AFAIK) cannot pass through rock.

 

[Haig]

<snip>
Wrong, Haig - that is a plasmacosmology web site lie.

8 December 2014: Haig: Magnetic fields can exist without electric currents, e.g. light and ferromagnetism have no electric currents.

Gezz Reality Check didn't you know the electric current is internal ? A magnetic dipole is a closed circulation of electric current
permanent magnet, such as a bar magnet, owes its magnetism to the intrinsic magnetic dipole moment of the electron.

Unlike Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology ...
"Currently the mainstream theories of the big-bang, inflation, redshift, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, background radiation, comets, are all having a problem with their evidence. There seems to be almost none.
These theories are becoming beliefs instead of science.
How can we take mainstream science serious, when it behaves like an emperor without clothes?"

 

[Reality Check]

Electric comets still do not exist

Updated the densities post with 67P observations.

1. Comets have measured densities that are much less than that of rocks (asteroids).
2. Comets may not have the composition of asteroids
3. Deep Impact confirmed that comet nuclei are made of dust and ice not rock. There were a couple of surprises in that the dust was talcum powder rather than sand and the amount of ice was smaller than expected.
   "Analysis of data from the Swift X-ray telescope showed that the comet continued outgassing from the impact for 13 days, with a peak five days after impact. A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[35] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact."WP
   Thus the water content of Comet Tempel 1 is 20% to 50%.
4. Cometary dust as collected by the Stardust mission contain forms of carbon that are not in meteorites.
5. Electric Comets I
6. Electric Comets II: References
7. Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays (actually no EU X-ray bursts).
8. The EC assumption of EDM machining does not produce jets.
9. EDM in the EC idea needs a dielectric material which does not exist!
10. No EDM sparks are seen in images of comet nuclei.
11. No EDM hot spots are seen in thermal maps of Tempel 1.
12. Voltage potentials are many orders of magnitude too small.
13. EC predicts that 100,000's of asteroids should be comets
14. Water, water everywhere (except in the EC idea)
15. EC proponents have the delusion that argument by YouTube video is somehow scientific !
16. EC proponents may think that EC comets switch off at perihelion?
17. EC proponents trust a web site that lies to its readers about "confirmed" predictions: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions. [/URL
    

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6599318#post6599318

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Do electromagnetic waves contain electric currents

Gezz Reality Check ...snipped ignorance...

Gezz Haig, this was a statement:
8 December 2014 Haig: Magnetic fields can exist without electric currents, e.g. light and ferromagnetism have no electric currents.
based on the expectation that you knew what electromagnetic waves and electron were (and how to spell ferromagnetism - it is not paramagnetism!) but that does not seem to be the case. So
8 December 2014 Haig: Do electromagnetic waves contain electric currents (they have magnetic fields!)?
8 December 2014 Haig: Do electrons have intrinsic angular momentum and thus a magnetic moment without any electric currents?
permanent magnet, such as a bar magnet, owes its magnetism to the intrinsic magnetic dipole moment of the electron.
Highlighted the not an electric current bit.

 

[Reality Check]

It reminds me of what David Talbot said on this thread recently "There are no isolated islands in an Electric Universe"

Sorry, Haig, but that seems to be a rather ignorant statement.
The nature of electromagnetism is that it can be shielded and definitely is in plasmas.
Thus: "There are isolated islands in an Electric Universe - in general for scales above the Debye length, e.g. 100,000 meters for intergalactic plasma"

The implied ignorance is that gravitation cannot be shielded so: "There are no isolated islands in an Gravitational Universe"

 

[Reality Check]

David Talbott: Citations that solar warming can't account for comet outbursts, etc.

The point is that mere warming by the Sun will never account for the litany of comet outbursts, ...snipped unsupported assertions...

8 December 2014 David Talbott: Citations to the scientific literature to support that solar warming cannot account for comet outbursts.

8 December 2014 David Talbott: Citations to the scientific literature to support that "pockets of subsurface gas exploding through an insulating surface layer simply do not work".

8 December 2014 David Talbott: Citations to the scientific literature to supports that sublimation means "sudden eruptions and rapidly declining energies over extremely short time frames".
P.S. what is the scientific definition of "extremely short time frames" nanoseconds, seconds, hours, years ?

8 December 2014 David Talbott: Citations to the scientific literature to supports that sublimation means "that there will be exposed ice".

8 December 2014 David Talbott: Citations to the scientific literature to supports that sublimation means "that there will be exposed ice".

8 December 2014 David Talbott: You do know that exposed ice has been detected. e.g. on Tempel 1?
Exposed Water Ice Deposits on the Surface of Comet 9P/Tempel 1

ETA: What we have seen so far is a quote by one astronomer in a news article who does not state that solar warming cannot account for comet outbursts.
Harpoon Malfunction May Have Saved ESA's Philae Comet Lander

...most of the article snipped...
As for the current Rosetta mission, next August, the comet 67P will make its closest approach to the Sun when it will lie approximately between the orbits of Earth and Mars .

By then Taylor expects that the interaction of the comet with charged particles from an increasing solar wind will cause more cometary outgassing and a much dustier environment which he says may severely impinge on the lander’s solar arrays.

“We will be able to see how the comet’s nucleus waxes and wanes as it goes through its closest approach to the Sun,” said Taylor. “The key is to observe how this comet evolves in time; to see how it works.”

 

[Haig]

<snip usual RC stuff>

Pointless answering your questions.

Try answering these important questions (from Dr. L. Körtvélyessy ) for Electric Comets >>> Electric Sun ...

Comets
Why does the ion-tail point in antisolar direction ?
Why does the "plasma-tail" not follow the solar, nonradial "frozen-in" field ?
What is the origin of the ions of a comet ?
Could a temperature of 4.6 MK of unknown origin cause the ions of Hyakutake ?
Why did the small Tsuchiya Kiuchi emit X ray in 1990 as strong as Hyakutake in 1996 ?
How can the ion-tail consist of million km long filaments ?
Why are the filaments of the ion tail not unified or mixed by the solar wind ?
Why is the "antigravity" of the tail-ions 20 times stronger than the solar gravity ?

The Sun as a process
Does any recent measurement show a stable Sun ?
Is the solar rotation stable ?
Is the solar diameter stable ?
Is the solar irradiation stable ?
Is the solar oscillation stable ?
Did GALLEX exactly follow the decay of the radioactive As in 1997 ?
Is the solar neutrino flux stable ?
Is the measured power of the solar core equal to the solar luminosity ?
Why are the solar non-magnetic parameters - e.g. the diameter - often shown interpolated as curves ?
Why do the curves of the non-magnetic parameters suggest a sunspot-periodicity ?
Is any realized current-circuit of the "solar dynamo" known ?
Is any estimation of the electric-current, -voltage, -power of the "solar dynamo" known ?
Does the poloid field - as "raw matter of the dynamo" - have a clear model ?
Is the differential rotation - as "drive of the dynamo" clear ?
"How does the differential rotation react to the creation of the field ?" (Vial )
"Where exactly is the " dynamo" situated ?" (Vial 1994)
How did the dynamo get started ?
Is the positive feedback of the solar dynamo clear ?
Did SOHO find the "solar dynamo" or any of the "deep flux tubes" ?
How can the "dynamo" "produce" big sunspots and also 150 km thin flux tubes ?
How can the "dynamo" produce 1 million km thick flux tubes ?
How can the "dynamo" produce and store many thick flux tubes ?
How can the "dynamo" produce 20 thick and radial flux tubes simultaneously ?
Which "dynamo" produces the flux tubes of the comets ?
Which "dynamo" produces the flux tubes of Abell 30 ?
Which "dynamo" produces the flux tubes of supernova-remnants ?
Which "dynamo" produces the gigatesla field of the neutron stars ?
Which "dynamo" produces the long and thin magnetic field of the radiogalaxies ?
Which "dynamo" produces the filaments of the superclusters ?


Solar wind
What releases the solar wind ?
Gravity ? Nuclear forces ? Magnetic force ?
Magnetics, perhaps via MHD-waves ?
Why did SOHO not find the source of the MHD-waves ?
Can the coronal heat be the source of the solar wind ?
Is the solar wind neutral, positive or negative ?
Why is the solar wind invisible in all wavelengths ?
Why are coronal holes "holes" ?
Why does the solar wind have a velocity of about 750 km/s ?
Why do the coronal holes mostly appear near the poles ?
Why does the wind seem to have a temperature over 1 MK ?
Why does SOHO show oxygen ions of 100 MK in the solar wind ?
Where is the "coronium light" in the aurora ?
Why is the solar wind not 40 MK hot ?
Why are the polar streamers thinner outwards ?
Why do the polar streamers strongly diverge ?
Why did Ulysses find ions in the wind in a 5 minute-rhythm ?
Why does the Sun have helmet streamers in sunspot-minimums ?
How can the helmet-streamers be asymmetrical to the solar equator ?
How can helmet streamers exist in close vicinity to each other ?
Why are polar streamers thin but helmet streamers thick ?
Why is the coronal hole black in X ray but bright in 1083.0 nm ?
Why are coronal holes black but the corona bright in X ray ?
Why are all coronal holes equally black in X ray ?
Does the solar wind have a "supersonic" speed ?
Did Ulysses detect the solar explosions ?
Why is the solar wind not braked by the gravity and by its expansion ?
How can the solar wind "blast" within seconds ?
Why does the "polar wind" have a high velocity ?
Why was the solar wind constantly very slow at Jupiter ?
Did Ulysses observe the Jovian electron torus ?
Did Ulysses observe a CME ?
Why did the solar wind "flow" faster and faster in 1993 ?
Why does the wind-curve show the solar rotation distinctly ?
Why was the wind slow (350km/s) in the ecliptics in 1995 ?
Why did Ulysses find quick reversals of the solar poloid field ?
Why does the "magnetic field frozen-in in the wind" alternate ?
Why do the coronal holes have a unipolar magnetic field ?
Why did two large coronal holes appear in 1974 ?
How can coronal holes rotate rigidly ?
Why does the aurora not appear in sunspot-minimum ?
Why do the aurora simultaneously appear on both poles of planets ?
Why are only few positive ions in the coronal holes ?
Why is the flux of the cosmic rays higher in sunspot-minimum ?

I'm expecting good answers from you Reality Check (I won't be answering yours until you do)

This should explain my last post as well ...
why electricity over magnetism?

A Birkeland current, for example, is emphasized as an electrical current. But its filamentary form is due to the magnetic “pinch” effect that accompanies the electric current. The two go together. Paying exclusive attention to one and ignoring the other will result in seeing only half the universe.

 

[Reality Check]

This discussion would get a lot more meaningful if someone would come on to this list and challenge any statement of fact in the Electric Comet documentary.

8 December 2014 David Talbott: How about you quote the first statement of fact (with the scientific literature to back it up) in that video and we will start from there.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Does a density of 0.4 g/cm^3 mean 67P cannot be rock?
"No. imo it means the mainstream are failing to measure mass and therefore density correctly due to their assumptions that solar system bodies have no net charge and that only the force of gravity is responsible for orbits. For more detail see my post HERE"

As Reality Check pointed out, the mass of the comet wasn't determined via its orbit, but via how it's velocity changed due to outgassing.

Also: the orbits of the planets are not perfectly Keplerian, due to the interactions between the planets. Numerical simulations which assume only gravity track the actual orbits very well, to where the difference between the simulation and reality is within the expected margin of error due to: 1) not having infinitely accurate measurements, and 2) not having an infinitely small time granularity in the simulations. Thus, any effect the net charges of planets and the Sun have on the orbits must be pretty small.

And, as Lukraak Sisser pointed out, the various space probes that have been sent out used trajectories that only took gravity into account, yet got where they were intended to go.