Deathblow to Electric Comet Theory - BBC - Rosetta's 10-billion-tonne comet

a reply to: Dae

How about you stay on topic please and address the OP.

I sense dissentment in the ranks. I thought that the Thunderbolts (headed by David Talbott & Wallace Thornhill) is the final authority on the matter, so it's interesting to see other people taking Electric Universe in different directions.

Still, the official EU line leaves no room for dirty snowballs. (I wish people would stop calling them that, though)

originally posted by: wildespace
I sense dissentment in the ranks. I thought that the Thunderbolts (headed by David Talbott & Wallace Thornhill) is the final authority on the matter, so it's interesting to see other people taking Electric Universe in different directions.

Still, the official EU line leaves no room for dirty snowballs. (I wish people would stop calling them that, though)

I have asked for these supposed alternate EU theories that allow for all this, so far they have been unable to provide it. As I said .. the ship jumping and goalpost moving has begun.

An interesting tidbit posted at the Unmanned SpaceFlight forum

If we presume the mean density as between 0.3 and 0.4 of that of water (three times the "old" estimate of 0.1 due to the triple mass), and water ice and silicate dust as main constituents, the mean porosity of the nucleus should be about 70%. This would rule out abundant massive solid rock, instead allow loosely connected non-spherical grains (e.g. flakes or needles), a solid foam (of rock and ice), lots of large caverns, kind of a dry aerogel, or some mix of these structures.

a reply to: wildespace

If we presume

Standard model scientists are good at presuming things, just make it up as you go along so that everything fits with the accepted models. We punters just have to take their word for it, as we don't understand the science or the methods or the math involved.
The most likely scenario with 67P is that it is very light as it has undergone electrochemical reduction due to repeated interactions with the Suns electric field, and not the heat of the Sun. As silica is the most common material in the solar system it should be considered that the object is/was mainly silica, but within the flux tube of the comet the oxygen will be electrochemically removed, and as that oxygen interacts with the solar wind will appear to be the OH they call water.
The removal of the oxygen means that the silicon is left behind, and the object slowly becomes a macroporous silicon, a dry aerogel as the Unmanned Space Flight article suggests. It is likely that at the moment the object is a macroporous silica, which can have densities down to the originally quoted one, about 1/10 the density of water. Even if you go with the 3 times higher figure, it is still likely macroporous rather than having large voids or caverns.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace

If we presume

And yet you posted some of your own presumptions and guesses. Good game.

Science isn't religion, lots of presumption and guessing has to be done. Typically, this guessing is based on what we already know, so it isn't like a blind stab in a random direction.

Isn't the whole of EU based on one big presumption that electricity drives the formation and function of practically anything, from galaxies to mountains and craters?

I really wish that people from the non-mainstream crowd didn't resort to these cheap stabs at science, picking on every mention of "presume", "guess", "suprised", "mystery", etc. It's immature, unprofessional, and shows people's ignorance about what the scientific method is.

a reply to: wildespace

Isn't the whole of EU based on one big presumption that electricity drives the formation and function of practically anything, from galaxies to mountains and craters?

It is based on the effects noted in laboratory experiments that can reproduce many observed phenomena in the heavens. Flux tubes, from micro to macro scales, are accepted, they are not due to gravity. Shaping and metamophosis of rock by electrical and magnetic forces is possible in the lab, craters from elecrical discharges is possible in the lab, it's all a bout the scales involved. So unless it can be disproven that electricity and magnetism could have caused those same effects in space, the idea must be considered a viable alternative.

a reply to: GaryN

The mistake the EU is making here is in assuming that lab experiments can be extrapolated to cosmic scales. The mainstream model says that plasma density in space is too thin for that.

For a cosmic thunderbolt to occur and to achieve all these things the EU claims it achieves, there has to be a titanic separation of charges. No such titanic separation of charges has been ever observed in the universe. The EU simply makes an assumption, based not in small part on speculative interpretation of ancient drawings and legends. Sorry, but for real science, that just doesn't cut it. Just because results of a lab experiment look like something we see in space, doesn't mean the same forces and the same process was involved. A network of roads or rivers might look like a network of blood vessels or neurons, but that's where the similarity ends.

a reply to: wildespace

Are we now trying to reconcile the Electric Universe with the standard model, the same way some people try to reconcile evolution with creationism (or science with religion in general)?

Whenever something new is learned and becomes mainstream, it almost always holds part of the old with part of the new. Both can have correct points which do combine, in any subject matter.

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: wildespace

Are we now trying to reconcile the Electric Universe with the standard model, the same way some people try to reconcile evolution with creationism (or science with religion in general)?

Whenever something new is learned and becomes mainstream, it almost always holds part of the old with part of the new. Both can have correct points which do combine, in any subject matter.

That's because it builds on what was previously known. EU and Standard Model are as irreconcileable as Flat Earth and Round Earth. Mainstream has always incoorporated an "electric" component. EU only works if the Standard Model is completely wrong.

a reply to: wildespace

For a cosmic thunderbolt to occur and to achieve all these things the EU claims it achieves, there has to be a titanic separation of charges. No such titanic separation of charges has been ever observed in the universe.

Where very powerful magnetic fields exist around magnetars or some black holes for example, astrophysicists have determined that to produce those magnetic fields there must be electric fields with gradients of GeV/cm. Yes, per centimetre. I'd say that was Titanic levels. This is why the standard model needs the extremely dense matter to exist because it is that extremely dense matter that causes charge separation, whereas in my model the strong electric field is the result of optical rectification of gamma rays produced by a Sun that is not an atomic fusion reaction, but a vacuum spark/arc in a cosmic scale flux tube. Have fun picking that idea apart!

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace

For a cosmic thunderbolt to occur and to achieve all these things the EU claims it achieves, there has to be a titanic separation of charges. No such titanic separation of charges has been ever observed in the universe.

Where very powerful magnetic fields exist around magnetars or some black holes for example, astrophysicists have determined that to produce those magnetic fields there must be electric fields with gradients of GeV/cm. Yes, per centimetre. I'd say that was Titanic levels.

But there are no magnetars or black holes in or anywhere near the Solar System, right? Besides, the EU theory dispenses with black holes, and attributes their miraculous electric currents to the interstellar plasma itself.

This is why the standard model needs the extremely dense matter to exist because it is that extremely dense matter that causes charge separation, whereas in my model the strong electric field is the result of optical rectification of gamma rays produced by a Sun that is not an atomic fusion reaction, but a vacuum spark/arc in a cosmic scale flux tube. Have fun picking that idea apart!

What is optical rectification? A quick Google search points only to it affecting polarisation, and producing other types of EM radiation, such as using lasers to produce terahertz radiation.

By the way, the Sun doesn't emmit gamma rays as such, although occasionally it produces gamma rays by cyclotron-type mechanisms, during solar flares.
www.windows2universe.org...
www.universetoday.com...

Actually, as seen in high-energy gamma rays, the Moon is brighter than the quiet Sun.
heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: myselfaswell
The standard model is not definitive. And never has been. Gravity, just sayin.

And the EU "theory" (if it can be that coherent): when has it been right about ANYTHING?

a reply to: mbkennel

I'm not suggesting that EU theory is even close to the mark. I'm saying that comparing an incomplete model against another incomplete and possibly wrong theory is totally futile, but it does not rule out the possibility of an EU in whole or in part.

Any suggestion that we actually know more than a rough approximation about how the universe works, to me, is laughable.

I do get tired of hearing science declare, "That's it, we've worked it all out all we've got to do now is fill in a few gaps." Only to hear a few months or so later, "You know that whole worked it out thing we said a few months ago, well that wan't necessarily,technically correct. It might only be 20%, sort of correct.".

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: mbkennel

I'm not suggesting that EU theory is even close to the mark. I'm saying that comparing an incomplete model against another incomplete and possibly wrong theory is totally futile, but it does not rule out the possibility of an EU in whole or in part.

Any suggestion that we actually know more than a rough approximation about how the universe works, to me, is laughable.

I do get tired of hearing science declare, "That's it, we've worked it all out all we've got to do now is fill in a few gaps." Only to hear a few months or so later, "You know that whole worked it out thing we said a few months ago, well that wan't necessarily,technically correct. It might only be 20%, sort of correct.".

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

Can you show all the times this happens? Because I have never heard this happen. I would love to read all this stuff I am missing.

What I always read is that we aren't sure, and we have competing theories, even within the same model.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I love all the members on here that seem to be science haters and they only reason they can let the other members know their opinion is because of science!

a reply to: wmd_2008

It's a typical cop-out by people who don't understand how science works. "Scientists are always wrong, therefore I'm gonna accept any crazy alternative theory that comes along, because it makes more sense." They probably like the EU because it already has everything figured out and there's no room for correction or refinement. It's easy to say "electricity did it" and not bother with any more learning.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I have looked for the specific text I was referring to but cannot find it, it was pre the inference of dark matter. You'll just have to take my word for it.

Anyway, looks like you've got an awful lot of catching up to do.

Here is a list, some old some new from a wide variety of science disciplines

From the source;

The flat earth and geocentric world are examples of wrong scientific beliefs that were held for long periods. Can you name your favorite example and for extra credit why it was believed to be true?

No doubt you'll love reading the source but I will show you a few answers;

Firstly a quote from the source;

Two philosophers meet in the hall. One says to the other, Why do you supposed people believed for such a long time that the sun goes around the earth, rather than that the earth rotates? The other philosopher replies, Obviously because it looks as though the sun is going around the earth. To which the first philosopher replies, But what would it look like if it looked like the earth was rotating?

And now for a few responses;

• Claim: Mathematics exists objectively and structures the universe. Mathematics has actually been created by mathematicians using their human brains, with frames and metaphors.

• For years I believed the Government's insistence that UFO's did not exist until I saw one under circumstances that could leave no doubt. Subsequently over many years I have seen three more. Being a scientist and professor at U.C. Berkeley, I quizzed many graduate students, asking them if they think they have seen UFO's would they come to my office and tell me about them. To my surprise, several of them did, and some went on to teach at various universities such as CalTech, and Johns Hopkins. They found, as I have, if a person hasn't seen one, he/she won't believe you. I have convinced only one scientist, and this was by giving him two excellent books on the subject which he read carefully, He came to me and said, "I am now a believer, but why this government secrecy?" I replied that I didn't know but that it must be extremely important to some branch of the government in the military.

And now for my favourite;

• My favorite example is about science itself. For the longest time scientists didn't believe that their own discipline followed rules, per se, but then Imre Lakatos, Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper and, my favorite, Paul Feyerabend showed how science was sociology, was prone to enthusiasms, fashions, and dogma, and so on. It was one of the most important realizations of my doctoral program.

Try this also for an interesting read, from the Scientific American.

According to astronomical measurements, the matter described by the Standard Model that makes up the stars, planets and ultimately us, only accounts for a tiny fraction of the universe. We appear to be a thin layer of froth, floating on top of an invisible ocean of dark matter and dark energy, about which we know almost nothing.

Worse still, according to the Standard Model, we shouldn’t exist at all. The theory predicts that, after the Big Bang, equal quantities of matter and antimatter should have obliterated each other, leaving an empty universe.

It's truly amazing some of the things you can do beyond the predictions of the Standard Model. Especially that whole existence thingy. Makes an EU look rather mundane I'd say.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

a reply to: myselfaswell

The flat earth and geocentric world are examples of wrong scientific beliefs that were held for long periods.

Neither of which was a "scientific belief". It was documented as early as the ancient Greeks that the Earth is round and religious dogma which stifled the scientific observations that the Earth circles the Sun. The scientific method did not exist until Galileo started his work.

It's truly amazing some of the things you can do beyond the predictions of the Standard Model.

The standard model of particle physics doesn't have much to do with the EU idea but the problematic nature of quantum mechanics has been known since its advent. The thing is, it works really well. So well in fact, that I'm sitting here using a computer which uses very very tiny transistors. Transistors which were created as a direct extension of that standard model.

a reply to: Phage

True. They were Standard Models, older versions of the one we have today.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell