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

originally posted by: Mastronaut
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.

They're not theories, they're hypothesises at best. A scientific theory is as close to fact as you can get and provides a solid model for a process. Lacking in any evidence, as they do, they just don't make the mark I'm afraid. EU supporters seem to be obsessed with just using their eyes while ignoring the fact we can now measure and detect things in minute detail using highly calibrated and accurate instruments. Reminds me the armchair building engineers that are experts on collapses.
The scientific community moved past these rudimentary analytical methods hundreds of years ago.

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.

Not sure what you're getting at...

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.

Plasma is an ionised gas, not ice or dust - unless the ice has sublimated and become ionised but then it's not ice anymore!
Sounds like the usual EU trick of changing definitions and flinging as much poop at the wall as possible to see what sticks and claim victory.

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 addressed this before, but the technical capabilities and mission plan was published long before it even landed and what happened was what was expected. I can't understand how anyone who thinks they are in a position to challenge a theory or question how a mission operates could know so little about basic mission parameters..

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?

Come back when you've learned about what's involved in flight dynamics.. How is anyone supposed to know exactly to the tiniest detail where, at what force, what duration, etc jets are going to occur? Actually forget flight dynamics, you're not grasping simple common sense.

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.

It's not that exotic if you have a scientific mind. Look at the things we are able to achieve technologically, even the technology behind modern touchscreens, etc was exotic not long ago. Science can be very complicated, but it doesn't change the facts. Which is why a wide array of calibrated and accurate instruments are used to measure as many parameters as possible to create an accurate picture as possible. EU supports prefer to ignore data and just use their eyes, like some sort of caveman. This was why a lot of people used to think that we lived in a geocentric solar system, though of course we now know how laughable that is.

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?

As you're a genius and the one challenging, you should provide your calculations. We're waiting.

It's kind of hard for the EU theory to die when it was never alive or had a leg to stand on in the first place.

originally posted by: AgentSmith
They're not theories, they're hypothesises at best. A scientific theory is as close to fact as you can get and provides a solid model for a process. Lacking in any evidence, as they do, they just don't make the mark I'm afraid. EU supporters seem to be obsessed with just using their eyes while ignoring the fact we can now measure and detect things in minute detail using highly calibrated and accurate instruments. Reminds me the armchair building engineers that are experts on collapses.
The scientific community moved past these rudimentary analytical methods hundreds of years ago.

I'm the one claiming that there is no EU theory indeed. Facts are facts, theories are ways to explain facts. There is no way a theory is a fact. And we can measure so minute details we find no ice on a thing that should be made of ice. Fact.

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.

Not sure what you're getting at...

that those streams may simply not be coming from the unproven "icy" nucleus maybe?

I addressed this before, but the technical capabilities and mission plan was published long before it even landed and what happened was what was expected. I can't understand how anyone who thinks they are in a position to challenge a theory or question how a mission operates could know so little about basic mission parameters..

What happened is not exactly what was expected, and talking about expectations the ice wasn't found, it was announced first but recent published papers seems to not find any ice, but just dust allegedly deposited during previous orbits.

Come back when you've learned about what's involved in flight dynamics.. How is anyone supposed to know exactly to the tiniest detail where, at what force, what duration, etc jets are going to occur? Actually forget flight dynamics, you're not grasping simple common sense.

How exactly an increase of 1s over 12h per day is something so slight it coulnd't be predicted when it was barely 33ms just few months ago? How exactly a stream of dust ejected at 800ms can modify so much the orbit of a 60km distant probe which has a few sq meters of panels always oriented in a single direction? It may be sensationalism in the article, but I see nothing scientific in the explaination of how these stream affected the path, no friction tho they talk about aerodynamics, and if these jets were what we expected from current theories we should have a rather good idea of which area would be emitting, at least in a ballpark to make corrections in the orbit.

It's not that exotic if you have a scientific mind. Look at the things we are able to achieve technologically, even the technology behind modern touchscreens, etc was exotic not long ago. Science can be very complicated, but it doesn't change the facts. Which is why a wide array of calibrated and accurate instruments are used to measure as many parameters as possible to create an accurate picture as possible. EU supports prefer to ignore data and just use their eyes, like some sort of caveman. This was why a lot of people used to think that we lived in a geocentric solar system, though of course we now know how laughable that is.

And one day we'll laugh at today's view, or maybe you think we're done researching? Exotic will still exist, because data aren't models. You can have all the data you want at all precision possible (which is what we are good at improving), the theories that explain those data instead are made by people by means of consensus. And when you point out fallacies in general you get derided or tagged as an EU-proponent exactly like you are doing to me.

As you're a genius and the one challenging, you should provide your calculations. We're waiting.

No, the current theories say it and I don't see a technical paper describing this. How much pressure do you need to slow the rotation of 1 billion tons when the supposed stream should be made of sublimated ice at -93°c? How much does this pressure increased to bring this value from .0033s to 1s in a few months? Shouldn't it be a rather big change and shouldn't it mean that there should be a pretty big difference in emission? Nobody noticed this in the last few months, it just became evident when they plugged the data in the computer model and it didn't match the marks?

originally posted by: ErosA433
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

Not you sure what you mean by "to say it is ignored".

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

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

Assigning cause to the standard model are you? Shocking. Where is the picture or time lapse of the gas jet or jets? A different, previous study already determined that the rate of discharge is unrelated to the spin rate.
Better consult the priests to get your story straight.

PSI Senior Scientists Nalin H. Samarasinha and Beatrice E.A. Mueller have determined such changes are a function of a comet’s size, period, and the solar energy it receives, but surprisingly not a function of the fraction of a comet’s surface that is active

source

I myself think the universe is varied enough to have both the 'standard model' and the 'charged-electrical model'

just as there are 3 main models of Asteroid composition (with 2 other rarer compositions): [space.com]

...In addition to classifications of asteroids based on their orbits, most asteroids fall into three classes based on composition. The C-type or carbonaceous are greyish in color and are the most common, including more than 75 percent of known asteroids. They probably consist of clay and stony silicate rocks, and inhabit the main belt's outer regions. The S-type or silicaceous asteroids are greenish to reddish in color, account for about 17 percent of known asteroids, and dominate the inner asteroid belt. They appear to be made of silicate materials and nickel-iron. The M-type or metallic asteroids are reddish in color, make up most of the rest of the asteroids, ...
There are many other rare types based on composition as well — for instance, V-type asteroids typified by Vesta have a basaltic, volcanic crust.

the various types of comets could be either the ice-gravel snowballs-in-space type or the plazma energized abundant metal types of comets that were dusted by ice deposits in deep space collisions...

open minded

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.

How well did the standard model predict the characteristics of the comets surface? The Philae was designed to land and it had feet, dampers and thruster timing for your mythical dirty snow ball.

According to observations it bounced three times.

According to the standard model, that must have been chocolate covered ice cream.

a reply to: Mastronaut

Because you have faith in mainstream astrophysics?

Please explain to me how your statement about astrophysics makes any sense at all.


Are there different types of astrophysics? Is mainstream astrophysics just another saying for our best sciences in that field.


I have been seeing people put the label of mainstream in front of many fields in recent years and that cliche is starting to lose meaning.


I may be wrong on this which is why I am asking.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Mastronaut

Because you have faith in mainstream astrophysics?

Please explain to me how your statement about astrophysics makes any sense at all.


Are there different types of astrophysics? Is mainstream astrophysics just another saying for our best sciences in that field.


I have been seeing people put the label of mainstream in front of many fields in recent years and that cliche is starting to lose meaning.


I may be wrong on this which is why I am asking.

I mean the mainstream view about outer space objects. Since what is not mainstream is labelled pseudoscience there is not a large spectrum of ideas that can fit the model (in this case mainstream view about comet formation, composition and behaviour). In that reply I was talking in a slightly broader sense since comet model derives from standard solar system formation model.

Why does it have to be either or? Why can't it be a combination of two hypothesis's?

Things can be way more complicated than one thinks. Energy is stored in crystals, when crystals are exposed to energy they can either explode or their energy of disintigration can dissipate slowly. It is all about breaking bonds. bonds are an energy storing process or in the case of turning to ice, the bond is formed by the lack of energy which tightens the bonds and upon release of the tension of the bonds, it absorbs energy which could trigger a breakdown forming a comet's tail if the energy is big enough. Splitting the bonds of water can cause a change in the charge of the atoms under the right condition.

That barely even makes sense to me and I wrote it. I have to work on trying to explain some things better

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.

We looked everywhere for the electrical action and guess what? We found it almost everywhere we looked.

Hi I'm new here and I don't know where to put this but I have something huge to share with the world. A lot of strange things are happening here, on mars, on the moon our solar system the comet and my own body. A year ago something happened and I was infected with something the doctors cannot figure out. Over the past year u have dedicated my life to finding out what this is. I thought it was a fungal infection as there are similarities but now I am Noti ING what is going on in my skin I happening in our cloud formations but first I noticed it on the moon. I have sores that look identical to the craters on Mars and the moon. They appear to have a serpent like thing around the rim made of interlocking figure eights and these are found proud the crater as well and same on my skin. This is a very long story and I don't have time but these evolved on my skin to match the the cloud that was pouring out something like a slit in the sky. They formed what look like interlocking skulls which you will see in Siberia the moon the comet and mars. I actually captured one with a device I have for manufacturing carbon fiber parts. It went from invisible to 3 ft. In. Second which is when I knew this cane from space and u know without a doubt there us life on Mars the moon and earth that is eating away the planets like a giant worm that becomes the host .it's hard to explain without me showing you a demonstration but trust me this is real the is a video of a pot on mars. That pits real..If you look at Te inscription. I This A Single Celled Organism Undergoing mitosis. This organism destroys planets And creates universes it is the comet it is the god particle. I have watched it be erode my cement in a day. I'm not crazy although I know I sound it. I have photos thousands of them over a year. I have connections to we'll I can't say that but. This is the biggest thing ever to be discovered. I have the alpha and omega and it's a piece of dust that grows into a worm like being made from interconnecting figure eights or cork screws. There is too much to Tell but this is the real deal. I have proof of life in space and our mountainside have changed recently unless they have always been like that almost like octopus drooping all over eacthother. My fear is this may be something sinister because of what it is doing . Oh yes it is what destroyed mars and it has been turning my skin and my wifes skin and thngs in my shop the color of mars. On that's enough. Out of me for now..oles don't joke this is the real deal guys it's unbelievable but it is the real deal. God Satan alpha omega Remember god said he was the alpha and the omega right so is this god are god and Satan one or is that all just a story to explain. This little organs I'm that has the power to create and destroy

originally posted by: MastronautDo 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.

What happens to a glass of water when you pull a 20mbar vacuum on it?

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

The standard model predicts a porous dusty icy material, with some rock... the difficulty is however that the exact structure and exact porosity is unknown,, or was unknown.

Also the gravitational force of attraction is extremely small, it mean the probe had to be designed to do the following

Land on a object that is rotating, provides almost no gravity, on a surface with an unknown hardness/stability. The craft was designed the best the engineers knew how to achieve this.

Partly the failure was the speed at which the craft could deploy these handing mechanisms to anchor it, which failed.

It did fail, they admit it, they didnt try and cover it up, they even went to the trouble of finding the bounces and trying to figure out actually some science from the behavour of the craft as it skipped over the surface. All of it was useful.

It is like saying "Well that long distance runner is really bad because he once fell over" the fact is that the scientific and engineering challenges presented where extreme, and they mostly where successful.

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: MastronautDo 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.

What happens to a glass of water when you pull a 20mbar vacuum on it?

And what happens when you pull a 20mbar vacuum on a glass of water already in a vacuum? It doesn't seem that your example fits the situation of a space object.

Since you surely have the knowledge to do a ballpark calculation can you please try to reply to my question (which wasn't trollish, it was genuine), I'll rephrase it for easyness:
How much material must be ejected to slow down the rotation of a 10^13 Kg object by ~1s per day or about .5s per rotation?

Just consider the easiest and safest case and roughly do the math. It's an honest question, it would take me really a lot of time to do this, but you must have an idea of what the ballpark is if you are sure this outgassing is the reason for the slowing.

a reply to: Mastronaut

My point is is that Water starts to boil at a fairly rough vacuum. Beyond that, it freezes. This is the same of other atmospheric gasses. A ball of ice, exposed to hard vacuum would slowly sublimate with time, limited by thermal ejection from the surface.

Outgassing is a understood phenomena is my point, and the generation of streams of gas when the surface is excited/exposed to radiation is completely predicted to happen.

Rotational period is, 12.4043 hours or 44655s
Radius assume its a stick, and take a mid dimension of 3.5km
Escape velocity is about 1m/s
density is 0.47 g/cm3
Max temperature is about -40C

Iv worked a lot with vacuum systems, and during a bake out, where you have a source of energy causing gases to eject from surfaces, will give you a mean gas load of about 10^-5 mbar L / s cm2 (this is for wet acrylic, but the reason i use this number is because acrylic is fairly absorbant, but it is also dense, the material on the surface of the comet is probably worse, but i dont want to low or high ball it. So lets just use this example
(ref mmrc.caltech.edu... back pages)

a rough dimension is about 3.5x4.5x1.5km, so lets sat 50% of that is sunlit and outgassing at the above number... lets take it as though it is a cylinder with dimension 4.5x1.5km and forget the area of the ends (4.5 high, diameter 1.5)

Pi*4.5*1.5 gives you the total area, so lets half that and you get 10.6km^2 in cm^2 this is 10.6x10^10 cm^2

SO for your outgassing that gives you 1,060,000 mbar l / s

Though not an ideal gas, lets use pv = nRT, n = 1060000/(8.314*233) = 547 mols /s

Very brief search for gasses coming out of it lets take carbon dioxide as the dominent (might be wrong, but lets just use that is 44g/mol, so the total outgassing mass loss is around 44*547 = 24kg/s

In 44655 (1 day on p67) that is 1x10^6 kg
At that rate it would take the comet about 13,000 years to completely vaporize

But what about the deceleration, A gas molecule ejecting from the surface, if you take the boltzman velocity distribution gives about 370m/s rms for each molecule. This is the tricky part and I have to look up a few things regarding a spinning cyclinder (not along its axis), will get back to you. I think you can do a straight momentum transfer, IE the momentum carried away is the loss of angular momentum, so this roughly gives you 8880 Ns / s

Noooow this is the part im not totally sure about but that in units looks like a force so 8880 N

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

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.

How well did the standard model predict the characteristics of the comets surface? The Philae was designed to land and it had feet, dampers and thruster timing for your mythical dirty snow ball.

According to observations it bounced three times.

According to the standard model, that must have been chocolate covered ice cream.

Do you know anything about the mission? The cold gas thruster tested with a fault prior to deployment but the decision was made to try anyway as there was nothing to lose.
The harpoons didn't fire (which was probably good as without the thruster it may have fired off the comet permanently) and without the thruster the screws couldn't deploy. It only weighs 1 gram on the comet. What did you expect?

Learn about the mission before you make yourself look even less informed.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

Assigning cause to the standard model are you? Shocking. Where is the picture or time lapse of the gas jet or jets?

Did you even read the source? The picture is the first thing you see.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

How well did the standard model predict the characteristics of the comets surface? The Philae was designed to land and it had feet, dampers and thruster timing for your mythical dirty snow ball.

According to observations it bounced three times.

According to the standard model, that must have been chocolate covered ice cream.

Very well. It's composition is almost exactly as predicted. It was harder than expected, but Philae is sitting right next to a wall of ice, exactly as predicted by the Standard Model. There is no electrical discharge, none, explain that?

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Nice logical fallacy, we are talking about the electric comet theory, and the fact it's proven wrong.

a reply to: ErosA433

Ty very much I was sure you could do it!
Now let's go a bit further. What is the angular momentum of this object (if it was a simpler geometry ofc)? It's inertia must be huge and a 9k N force not directly opposite to the rotation seems hardly able to slow it down. I'm assuming only the surface exposed to the sun is emitting heavily, if it was evenly spread there should be a counterbalance.

Even if your rough calculation was off by some order of magnitudes (which I doubt honestly) and considering its perihelion is about 1.3 AU just after a close encounter with Jupiter ~60 years ago, we shouldn't expect this object to be primordial at all or it had to be initially a monster. However if this is a nucleus of a much bigger object sublimated across millions if not billions of years then its density should be much bigger, and why the crust should be denser and harder than the interior, as many speculates in recent articles about a NASA experiment like this?
At those distances it's probably more the ionization from UV then the heating from the IR (nor to mention the experiment wasn't made in deep space).

Or other claims like these where we go from "hints of ice" to "detects water ice" just for sensationalism, then you read the article and you read that researchers believe that the small reflectivity difference seen through the filters might be an indication of ice. Still nobody can confirm there is ice on this comet, neither on the surface, nor inside, not even in the jets.

I think that the tidal influence of the Sun, and maybe Jupiter and Mars in closer encouters, would have a bigger effect in the rotation of this object, not a torque due to sublimation as mentioned on wikipedia and backed up with evidence of nothing, no calculations, no rough estimates, nothing, just speculation based on hypothesis assumed true. Basically it's a table that shows the rotation is slowing, full stop.

So all in all it's pretty much a lie saying we are finding what we predicted based on the standard model of comets. If this was true this object should have been formed billions of years ago, stay outside of the solar system for most of its life, then get pulled inside in a low eccentricity orbit and just recently closer to the sun enough to get slightly above a hundred K to crystallize the surface and preserve a fluffy nucleus.

As I said I'm not a proponent of the EU theory, at least until somebody shows me an EU theory and not just some ideas about the electric nature of comets, but I also believe that quasi-neutrally charged objects are not the norm in space as much as they aren't anywhere in the universe. Especially on a space object surrounded by ionized "something" (since we can't say for sure what's this dust and gasses we see around it).
Before taking a hard stance about what is this I'd prefer to see much more data, same goes for the reason for the slowing. IF what they say turns out to be true then it opens a big can of worms about its age and formation.