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

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

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

No it's not and there is no proof of ice, regardless what you say it's speculation until detected as ESA says.
It doesn't mean the EU theory it's true, but the electric comet theory isn't based on the fact that there must be NO sublimation of surface material.

a reply to: Mastronaut

What is the EU theory based on, then? Every time I hear a prediction it's always with the caveat of "if this prediction doesn't come true that's because it's totes not what the EU theory is really about".

Heads I win
Tails I win

a reply to: Mastronaut

So then tell us what part of the EU theory has been verified so far by this mission?

Oh, and they have detected molecular nitrogen which would have to be trapped in ice (meaning there is ice) and OSIRIS data shows what is almost certainly ice ... oh and then there is the outgassing due to temperature increase.

No ice though, you are right.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I will even answer.

Significant things to look for as the Rosetta mission continues:

No evidence of subsurface ice at the sources of the jets;

FALSE. We have evidence of subsurface ice.

Virtually no interstellar dust, the second component of the “dirty snowball” theory;

FALSE. A layer of dust is proven.

Discovery of minerals on the nucleus that are typical of planetary surfaces within the

FALSE. The density of the comet proves it is not like a planet.

Habitable zone of the Sun; characteristic concentration of plasma jet activity eating away at the cliffs of elevated terrain and the margins of well-defined depressions;

FALSE. No plasma jet activity has been found.

Measurable retreat of active cliff regions in the wake of this activity; and

FALSE. No plasma jets, no retreat due to plasma jets.

The presence of unexpected electric fields within the coma and/or close to the comet nucleus, possibly even disrupting the anticipated landing on the surface. This could occur on or after touch down because the sharp metallic edges of the spacecraft make an ideal focus for a diffuse plasma discharge, which would disrupt communications and possibly interfere with spacecraft electronics.

FALSE. No unexpected electric fields detected, either during Philae's landing or afterward.

Every prediction, FALSE.

And, if a strong coronal mass ejection from the Sun strikes the comet, we expect the comet to respond electrically with a surge of activity, confirming that the jets are not due to warming from the Sun but to charged particle distribution in the electric field of the Sun.

FALSE. We have jets detected which are a direct result of the warming of the Sun.

www.thunderbolts.info...

In retrospect, the hindsight of putting a cheap little flashing IR LED on the bugger must be sorely realized.

originally posted by: charlyv
In retrospect, the hindsight of putting a cheap little flashing IR LED on the bugger must be sorely realized.

Hahahaha. Million dollar gadget destroyed because $1 lightbulb forgotten.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What do you mean no electric discharge? They've already pointed out that they have seen electromagnetic fields making the comet "sing" and witnessed X-ray discharge, that my friend it electricity at work. I don't hold out on EU being right, but like mastronaught said, how does that dismiss EU completely? This is more a silly attempt to discredit a reasonable theory than anything.

Any reasonable science wouldn't try to ridicule theories that have made correct predictions and have yet to be solidly proven wrong. Open minds are the only reason we haven't fallen off the end of the world.

a reply to: NiZZiM

All of which has nothing to do with what EU theory is about. Which is electrical discharges attacking Philae and destroying it possibly. Electrical discharges being responsible for the coma. Electricity arcing over the comet "welding" it.

There is none of that. What you are doing is taking something that deals with electricity and has NOTHING to do with supporting EU theory and claiming it does.

I listed the predictions, they have ALL been false, none of them have come true.

originally posted by: NiZZiM
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What do you mean no electric discharge? They've already pointed out that they have seen electromagnetic fields making the comet "sing" and witnessed X-ray discharge, that my friend it electricity at work. I don't hold out on EU being right, but like mastronaught said, how does that dismiss EU completely? This is more a silly attempt to discredit a reasonable theory than anything.

Any reasonable science wouldn't try to ridicule theories that have made correct predictions and have yet to be solidly proven wrong. Open minds are the only reason we haven't fallen off the end of the world.

The electrical interactions experienced are within what would be expected for accepted theories. You seem to be confused, the EU hypothesis tries to claim that electricity and magnetism plays a more important role in the Universe than gravity. The way you're talking it sounds like you think that standard theories ignore plasma, electricity and magnetism which is simply not the case. Ironically the main project scientist for Rosetta is actually an expert in space plasma physics and Rosetta has a whole suite of instruments to measure these types of interactions so it's hardly ignored..

The EU 'predictions' which are particularly crucial to the philosophy that electricity is the main force in the Universe predicted massive electrical discharges and the deaths of the spacecraft.This obviously does not happen. The RPC data does not back up the EU hypothesis.

It seems that EU proponents such as yourself are back peddling so fast you're modifying your expectations to the point where they are going to be what is generally accepted theory anyway! And then claim that you were right all along..

Sorry buddy, but that's not how it works.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Mastronaut

So then tell us what part of the EU theory has been verified so far by this mission?

It's you who are stating that this puts an end to the EU theory, I'm not saying it proves anything, just that it doesn't really disprove something that isn't rigorously defined.

Oh, and they have detected molecular nitrogen which would have to be trapped in ice (meaning there is ice) and OSIRIS data shows what is almost certainly ice ... oh and then there is the outgassing due to temperature increase.

No ice though, you are right.

Again speculations, or better, hypotesis. What OSIRIS shows is a higher reflectivity in the neck, a very small difference in reflectivity to be honest, nothing to be excited about. I don't know if this come is the norm or an exception, but it surely isn't big evidence for standard model of comets.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
FALSE. We have evidence of subsurface ice.

No we have hints.

FALSE. A layer of dust is proven.

In fact I am baffled by this theories since from what I read they assume this dust layer is deposited during perihelion, which is the opposite of what would be expected with increased outgassing. However there seem to be dust with a reasonable certainty.

FALSE. The density of the comet proves it is not like a planet.

We didn't sample it did we? So we are still inferring from theories, not facts.

FALSE. No plasma jet activity has been found.

We cannot rule it out, we didn't find ice either so...

FALSE. No unexpected electric fields detected, either during Philae's landing or afterward.

What devices are there to measure these activities? (honest question) And what are the measured intensities?

FALSE. We have jets detected which are a direct result of the warming of the Sun.

Again hipotesys, we should wait for VIRTIS measurements across a longer period, we have readings from 8 months ago iirc.

originally posted by: Mastronaut


No we have hints.

I did not say it's proven with 5 signa confidence, I said we have evidence of it, we do.

In fact I am baffled by this theories since from what I read they assume this dust layer is deposited during perihelion, which is the opposite of what would be expected with increased outgassing. However there seem to be dust with a reasonable certainty.

So we agree EU prediction is false there.

We didn't sample it did we? So we are still inferring from theories, not facts.

No, it's a fact, not a theory. We are able to use gravitational pull to determine mass. I don't care if you choose to claim the method works but there is a different reason why scientists don't understand yet, the fact is the method works. The mass is known, and proves a EU prediction FALSE.

We cannot rule it out, we didn't find ice either so...

We have data, there is no evidence of it. If you want to claim no matter how long we go with no evidence it's still true then you are not interested in the truth. As I already explained we did find evidence of ice.

What devices are there to measure these activities? (honest question) And what are the measured intensities?

No device would even be necessary. The claim made by the EU theorists was that Philae may be destroyed, communication disruptions, interference .. none of which has happened. There are devices onboard, you should look into it, I feel no need to go into it as the EU claim is falsified even without any devices by the mere fact the problems EU said would be encountered were not encountered.

Again hipotesys, we should wait for VIRTIS measurements across a longer period, we have readings from 8 months ago iirc.

My link is recent, not from 8 months ago. It's data from the past 2 months.

Literally EVERY single prediction made has either been proven false, or the evidence thus far is against EU theory. There is not one single piece of evidence that supports it.

originally posted by: Mastronaut
It's you who are stating that this puts an end to the EU theory, I'm not saying it proves anything, just that it doesn't really disprove something that isn't rigorously defined.

The old "can't be falsified because I refuse to define it" argument. That in and of itself means EU theory is laughable. Unfortunately for you SOME definitions were given, predictions were made, and I proved every single one is either wrong, or has no evidence in support and evidence against it.

I'm sorry I understand the post is more about disproving the EU than about 67p so I guess we are agreeing to disagree on some things, especially the concept of proof and evidence.

a reply to: Mastronaut

No, it's about both. If people came in talking about the other aspects that would be being discussed more. People came in talking about EU more so that is being discussed more.

Since you can not answer what has been found that lends credence to the EC theory the only logical conclusion is nothing does.

The dirty snowball theory never set right with me especially after seeing that 67p looks like a big rock.

Sounds like you simply do not understand it, especially since you think 67p is a big rock, when the fact is it would float if it was put in a lake. It's not a big rock.