Rosetta's comet is spinning down (and the Electric Comet theory has completely died)

My reasons for making this thread are twofold. One is to give an update on this amazing scientific achievement, and the other is to hopefully put to rest the EU theory forever.

We now have absolute proof that as the comet is heating up the ice is forming gasses, exactly as the standard model predicts. There is no Electric Comet reaction. That theory is quite dead now.

"The gas jets coming out of the comet - they are acting like thrusters and are slowing down the comet," said flight director Andrea Accomazzo.

Because of the changes Rosetta, which was orbiting the comet, has had to back off a bit.

During December and January, Rosetta was able to move to within 30km of Comet 67P and go into a gravitationally bound orbit.
This is no longer possible and Rosetta has retreated.

The good news is they are hoping this will allow them to find out where their missing lander is. They give it a 50-50 chance.

The science team is, however, preparing some closer flybys.
One of these, in July, could go as close as 20km, and may be used to picture the surface to try to find Rosetta's lost landing probe, Philae.
The little robot has been unresponsive since losing battery power a couple of days after touching down on 12 November.

m.bbc.com...

Trust me, someone will just see this as evidence for EU, Im just waiting for it so I can facepalm. Just like everything that goes in the face of EU theory, it will just be counted as evidence for it despite it not making logical sense... just wait... just wait.

Nice!
However I have a few concerns about the following things

Navigators use a system of landmarks on the comet to understand how it is rotating and moving through space.

This information is fed into a model that helps plan a trajectory for the satellite.

And it was while running this model that the Esa team realised the landmarks were not quite turning up in the right place at the expected time.

but

In recent weeks, the dust in the environment around the comet has even confused the star trackers that Rosetta uses to work out its orientation. The trackers thought the dust particles were stars.

So it seems to me it is far from a simple calculation and the dusty environment may have skewed the alignment and/or added friction.

Also why you are absolutely sure this put to rest the EU theory, I see really nothing that disprove a "paradigm" more than a theory and frankly the closer to the sun the higher the speed and the inertia, so it wouldn't sound strange an increasing slowdown.
On top of this we have "absolute proof" of nothing, we have computer models predicting certain times and these don't match the predictions. Is it the model wrong or nature wrong?

a reply to: ErosA433

Perhaps, except there is no electrical discharge, there is outgassing from the ice being heated, it's everything Standard Model predicts, and everything NOT predicted by EU. Basically the things EU people said would not be found and could not be found.

originally posted by: ErosA433
Trust me, someone will just see this as evidence for EU, Im just waiting for it so I can facepalm. Just like everything that goes in the face of EU theory, it will just be counted as evidence for it despite it not making logical sense... just wait... just wait.

Why are you so sure about that? Because you have faith in mainstream astrophysics? That's not a scientific stace, it's religious. I prefer to be skeptic of both theories tbh.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ErosA433

Perhaps, except there is no electrical discharge, there is outgassing from the ice being heated, it's everything Standard Model predicts, and everything NOT predicted by EU. Basically the things EU people said would not be found and could not be found.

I think you are wrong here, I've never seen claims that there could not be outgassing. In fact I'd say that a reason why Philae went dead could indeed be some electric discharge.

originally posted by: Mastronaut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ErosA433

Perhaps, except there is no electrical discharge, there is outgassing from the ice being heated, it's everything Standard Model predicts, and everything NOT predicted by EU. Basically the things EU people said would not be found and could not be found.

I think you are wrong here, I've never seen claims that there could not be outgassing. In fact I'd say that a reason why Philae went dead could indeed be some electric discharge.

Then you are completely ignorant on the subject if you think that is what happened to Philae. Have you even read up on it at all?

How can there be outgassing when Comets are solid iron/rock the exact same as asteroids?

a reply to: Mastronaut

Really?

You must have missed all the threads here on ATS on comet ISON then.

Lots of: There's no ice, it's all rock. There's no gas, it's all Plasma.

Seriously, go back and look.

OccamsRazor04 is right there, all we have seen has been more or less what we expected, and Philae didn't get zapped on impact, its absolutely not what happened. If it did, it wouldn't have returned anything at all. Most of the science that Philae did was completed (like 80% of its task).

I am skeptical of both theories, but just the sake of being facetious I was treating EU theory with the same gumption as the proponents do...

I remember one such proponent stating that what would happen is that Philae would get zapped by a massive discharge when it approached and it would be dead on arival. Well that didn't happen, not to Philae or Rosetta (which was also apparently going to get zapped)

Also its not Faith sir, its not the same thing... if you want to 'Believe' that it is based on zero credible evidence beyond 'telling me what i want to hear' syndrome then sure if you like, but it doesn't make it reality

a reply to: ErosA433

Philae died because it landed in a place without enough sunlight to keep it charged. It ran out of energy over time, it was not zapped.

Standard model - comets are porous and have ice material that heats up and discharges.
Electric model - comets are solid rock like asteroids and have little to no ice and discharge electricity.

Rosetta & Philae confirm porosity and ice material. They confirm no electrical discharging.

Why do you think the EU crowd has been so silent lately? The theory is dead now.

Really? I've read tons of times on thunderbolts.info that outgassing is definetly possible, you talk about the EU theory as if it was a comprehensive theory, while instead there are multiple and rather different theories some of which are outlandish for sure. Ice can accumulate on rocks too and honestly is a concern the idea that an 800ms ice stream comes out of a thing at a distance that at closest point is just inside the orbit of Mars.

I don't doubt there have been posts here claiming those things, I don't know how representative of the "eu theory" you talk about they are. Most of what I read that made sense is that comets aren't just balls of snow and dirt with low density. Plasma is a generic therm and in fact it could be made of ice and dust too.

The reason why I think there could have been some electrical interaction is the battery drop. I'll wait till they find it in the supposed crater before giving any faith to their claims.

I'm not sold on EU theory since I don't think it can be called so. I do think we are underestimating a lot of dipolar effects in space the reasons are that it would take a full review of... well basically everything, and the scientific community as a whole has an immense inertia and no revisionism is really allowed. The simple fact in this story is that if they knew and predicted so well what was this object, why do they had wrong markings and thus had to replan the trajectories? Weren't they aware of the outgassing?

I think that talking about eu theory is just a strawman argument to mantain the mainstream view as a religion. And religion will always find proofs for their view, even tho they need exotic explainations.
You know how much strength is needed to slow down the rotation by 1 second per day of an object with a mass 10^13 Kg? Do you think there is enough sunlight to trigger such an incredible amount of outgassing?

Feel free to link a scientific article that details these calculations, I have no problems in changing my mind if the numbers aren't off, since I'm not religious.

originally posted by: Mastronaut
Really? I've read tons of times on thunderbolts.info that outgassing is definetly possible

Can you show me where they claim comets are porous with ice material and outgassing is possible and would create a coma?

That sounds like the antithesis of EU/EC.

originally posted by: ErosA433
OccamsRazor04 is right there, all we have seen has been more or less what we expected, and Philae didn't get zapped on impact, its absolutely not what happened. If it did, it wouldn't have returned anything at all. Most of the science that Philae did was completed (like 80% of its task).

I am skeptical of both theories, but just the sake of being facetious I was treating EU theory with the same gumption as the proponents do...

Ye, there are religious people in both parties, I agree with you. Indeed trying to disprove the EU for those people is like trying to disprove creationism to fundamentalists.

I remember one such proponent stating that what would happen is that Philae would get zapped by a massive discharge when it approached and it would be dead on arival. Well that didn't happen, not to Philae or Rosetta (which was also apparently going to get zapped)

This is surely tied to the effects seen on Deep Impact. In this case I honestly don't know why there would be any need of sudden discharge with an object approaching at 38cm/s.

Also its not Faith sir, its not the same thing... if you want to 'Believe' that it is based on zero credible evidence beyond 'telling me what i want to hear' syndrome then sure if you like, but it doesn't make it reality

In fact there is always a point where you have to have faith. Either you have to believe that they told you everything, or you have to believe that the models are correct. I have faith that we have models which aren't reality nor provide a lot of alleged evidence, I think we discussed some of this in another thread about much more speculative DM thingies. However there are careers at stake, but I'm free to doubt and think about the sliver of truth in oulandish theories, and doing so on a cospiracy forum seems appropriate and stimulates discussion.

Credible? Why? We deem these objects as dirty balls of snow not because we analyzed them, but because the solar system formation model tells us so. And the BB theory told us that solar systems forms that way. So I don't like at all this top to bottom thinking, but I have no doubts that it is possible to build a model that does it and has some merit and some correct approximations.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Mastronaut
Really? I've read tons of times on thunderbolts.info that outgassing is definetly possible

Can you show me where they claim comets are porous with ice material and outgassing is possible and would create a coma?

That sounds like the antithesis of EU/EC.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was one of the EU predictions, of only because they make enough contradictory predictions to cover all bases and the claim victory when the prediction that also happens to align with the SM is correct.

Heads? Evidence for EU!
Tails? Evidence for EU!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yep, poor poor Philae, stuck up against a cliff. Hopefully it will come back alive, and hopefully not when it is being ejected due to environmental changes. Pretty awesome images though from it while it was (side) up and running on battery.

Really REALLY wanna see those solar cells get some juice into it so we can get more info direct from the surface.

Totally awesome mission, worth everything spent on it.


[edit] Yep, exactly my point GetHyped, exactly my point here. (to clear up any confusion, im certainly not a proponent of EU theory for exactly those reasons, and reasons that most of it makes little to no sense at all)

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Mastronaut
Really? I've read tons of times on thunderbolts.info that outgassing is definetly possible

Can you show me where they claim comets are porous with ice material and outgassing is possible and would create a coma?

That sounds like the antithesis of EU/EC.

Outgassing to create the coma not at all. Surface outgassing of icy debris ye, I'll try to find you some sources.
EDIT: This link is like what I was talking about.

However I found this article which mention no ice so I'd say that outgassing in that sense is not even considered by mainstream (the article is about a month old) despite a tentative (second quote)

“We found that the dust particles released first when the comet started to become active again are fluffy (with porosity over 50 per cent). They don’t contain ice, but they do contain a lot of sodium,” said Dr Rita Schulz of ESA’s Scientific Support Office, who is the first author of a paper published in the journal Nature.

and here's the second quote

“This layer is being removed as the activity of the comet is increasing again. We see this layer being removed, and we expect it to evolve into a more ice-rich phase in the coming months,” said Dr Martin Hilchenbach, COSIMA principal investigator and a co-author of the Nature paper.

So if "outgassing" is a technical word to describe the mainstream view, I'll retire my comment since it's not what I meant.

a reply to: GetHyped

You can say that for any theory which is derived from observations... we see heads, we see tails, why would a tentative theory not consider these?

a reply to: Mastronaut

outgassing is a very well known phenomena... always plays a very important role in vacuum systems, so to say it is ignored, is quite ignorant

originally posted by: Mastronaut
The reason why I think there could have been some electrical interaction is the battery drop. I'll wait till they find it in the supposed crater before giving any faith to their claims.

The battery lasted as long as it was supposed to and the primary mission phase for Philae was completed.
The solar panels were/are to provide a charging source so Philae's part of the mission could potentially be extended, I'm really not sure where you're getting your ideas or information from. It's all published as well if you search online, so it's not like you need to be involved directly.

a reply to: Mastronaut

Except the whole point of a theory is to make accurate predictions. The EU hypothesis makes contradictory predictions so that it can always be "right". That's like shooting a barn door and drawing a target around the holes.

The reason why I think there could have been some electrical interaction is the battery drop.

And then when the inevitable evidence that electrical interaction hadn't caused the issue is presented, this prediction will be quietly dropped and the contradictory EU prediction/hand waving will replace it.

Again, heads I win, tails I win.