Why Hasn't Rosetta Made the Electric Comet Obvious Yet?

[Rossim]

I am an avid supporter of most EU ideas and certainly those pertaining to the electric comet. I'm aware of the EU predictions, such as a dry, hard surface with little to no visible ice. However, these observations are 'easily' explained away as a product of sublimation from previous orbits. So, are there any possible 'smoking guns' or phenomena that could make the electric comet quite obvious to everyone? 67P is only about a week from perihelion and I'm worried we're running out of time... unless the comet inexplicably explodes post-perihelion with no water or porous structures revealed.

[Webbman]

the lack of information is a smoking gun.

[Rossim]

No, that's what a conspiracy theorist would say. "They're not releasing the info because it'll destroy the current theory." They've released plenty of observations, and while they point to an electrical mechanism to me, they can too easily be shrugged off with some sublimating explanation. Having a probe orbit a cometary discharge is the best experiment that the EU could have asked for, I had just hoped for an abundance of conflicting observations by this point.

[comingfrom]

I was listening to a mainstream media report on the radio, on the outcome of studies of the data which the Philae lander sent back before the batteries ran out. They down played the observational evidence that didn't support the "dirty snowball - primordial building material" theory, though the unexpected dry hard surface was mentioned. They played up the discovery of hydrocarbon compounds. The conclusive statement of the report was, comets contain everything required to create life.

[knomegnome]

I dont think it is about desire.. its about paradigm, I believe.

Imagine that for most of your life, from a child, you were taught to believe a certain thing. This thing had little or no hard evidence to back it up, but there were systems around it that made it appear to be true, and certainly, everyone around you believed it to be true. Psychologically, humans use other humans as checks on their judgements of reality, and this is very strongly true for children, who have no capacity for judgment at first, and so receive their basic programming from their parents and their society, but it is also true for adults, for the most part.

So, you simply accept these things as true reflections of genuine reality.

Add to that.. humans also display a very strong tendency to cling to beliefs that they use as bedrock notions of their definition of reality and its rules. If they are not encountering things every day to disprove their beliefs, and even if they do in many cases, they will continue to cling to these beliefs and ideas.

Evo-Psych has suggested that this is an evolutionary response.. that 'what has worked for the survivors works for the children of the survivors' is a very strong evolutionary mechanism in us, and all things. It is, in part, what has brought us to this moment as it does tend to self correct over evolutionary time.

So what this means is that there is no need for researchers to desire that their ideas are correct.. there is no need for any conspiracy. They will continue to defend their model of reality until it is completely untenable, and cannot stand. This is why we see so many deflections into explanations which put off discovery for many years.. like "There must be some mechanism we don't yet understand" vis a vis 'magnetic dynamos' and so on. It makes their internal model of reality more secure to put off the challenges to it, and so they do it.. and probably most don't even realize it.

However, Rosetta presents us with the best and most damning evidence to The Standard Model we have seen yet to date. You can see the cracks slowly forming as ordinary people, not conditioned in scientific culture, look at these photos and say simply "Wait a second there.. this is ROCK.. it looks like rock, it behaves like rock.. it must BE rock! What the heck are you talking about???"

We'll probably see them try to say that 67P is an exception to the rule, but then they are confronted with 100% of the other cometary photos and behaviors that also seem to indicate rock. And then comes in the EU, as how else could ROCK exhibit cometary behavior?

This may be the 'one observation' that Hoyle talked about that can dismantle the paradigm. We'll see. I fully expect there to be enormous amounts of hand waving before this is done. I had a feeling that this mission would be a true tipping point... I hope it is

[knomegnome]

Oh and by the way, please do watch the Space News on this mission. It goes into great detail about the mission from an EU perspective, and so answers a lot of your questions there.

There are some smoking guns, yes. The jets on the dark side exhibiting break down products for one. There are some IR measurements that also preclude the standard model, and some others. I'd encourage you to watch the videos, and the electrochemistry of comets video on the Thunderbolts YouTube channel.

[Rossim]

knomegnome, your response is just identifying the broad bias experienced by most astronomers and physicists. It makes sense, of course, but does not relate to what I was referring to. I have also watched every video on the Thunderbolts page, and read most articles. In order to approach the cosmos with a limited bias, I much check on my own beliefs from time to time, that being the EU paradigm. My thread is directed towards what would it take for the electric comet to be universally acknowledged.

Now, in case you aren't aware, nothing resembling the electric comet model has become self-aware among ESA, NASA, or any mainstream astronomer thus far with the Rosetta mission. The biggest 'discovery' IMO was the lack of direct photodissociation of water from UV radiation. There are no smoking guns, yet, only support in the eyes of EU thinkers. I'm talking the possibility of explosive arc discharging carving the surface of 67P, extreme temperatures beyond solar radiation, discoveries of intense electrical fields. Saying the density of the comet is wrong because the interpretation of mass and gravity are incorrect isn't going to happen when the only evidence is a (much) harder than expected surface.

[Bomb20]

ESA´s predicted:

If the comet behaves as in 2003 and 2009, the main jets should become visible a month before perihelion, i.e. mid-July 2015.

If I am not very mistaken then it did not happen until now. This could be the reason that Rosetta did not make the Electric Comet obvious. (And it was not designed to do that.)

And there are only a few days left to Perehelion.

[querious]

I'm talking the possibility of explosive arc discharging carving the surface of 67P, extreme temperatures beyond solar radiation, discoveries of intense electrical fields.

I for one have lost hope by now that cometary jets have anything to do with arc discharges. The fact that the jets (some quite rare exceptions do exist) STILL emanate almost exclusively from the sunlit portions of the comet kills the idea for me.

[knomegnome]

Querious.. why so? Don't you think that the side of the comet facing the source of the electric field would do that? I mean, thats generally how EDM works (and electrical interaction in general). Most of the discharge occurs facing the source of the electrical field/current. You don't see much EDM happening on the back sides of a piece of metal being sputtered (or any, really, since the E Field is so constrained).

This is analogous to any lightning bolt seeking ground.. it will follow the least resistant path, generally, and in the case of comets, that is directly facing the Sun.

With comets, to me it is interesting that they jet AT ALL on the dark side, and seems to indicate a lumpy composition with some offset ferrous materials, or it may be the result of complex interactions of E Fields and currents surrounding the object. Who knows? I would like to know, but they haven't even acknowledged that such things can happen.

[knomegnome]

knomegnome, <snip>interpretation of mass and gravity are incorrect isn't going to happen when the only evidence is a (much) harder than expected surface.

There is a lot more evidence than that... there are IR measurements that do not fit, there is detection of breakdown products in cometary gases near the comet's surface on the dark side, there is the huge amount of 'water' (hydroxyl ions) detected emitting from the comet, but no serious evidence of water ice on the surface, there are the Hydrogen spectral measurements that don't quite fit.. and so on. These bits are not being reported in the press, but they are being written up in papers.

I don't honestly know what will 'make it happen'.. there will have to be some kind of impossible to explain away evidence. As Sir Fred Hoyle said "What it will take is one observation".. we just don't know what that might be.

[comingfrom]

Not believing the Universe is electric caused them to leave the multi-meter behind.

[Rossim]

Knomegnome, I am only addressing this because I see it a lot amongst EU supporters.

There IS frickin water vapor, H2O, in the coma. It's water. Not just hydroxyl, but real life water molecules. MIRO cannot observe hydroxyl, it is programmed to see H2O and other constituents. To condemn that fact artificially presents that the EU dismisses it, in turn for an assumption based off the observations of hydroxyl. This was commonly done, but do not be ignorant, water vapor most certainly exists in the coma. The surface, on the other hand, is up for debate as all we have are "bluer" bright spots. That's all regarding the water/hydroxyl confusion.

The surface being hard like a rock is NOT evidence that the current relationship between matter and mass is incorrect, at least not yet. Perhaps, after the electric comet is directly observed in all of its fiery glory, this can be revisited. Rosetta was not designed to look for the electric comet, but that doesn't mean it's incapable of making the necessary observations. The ESA's explanation of the sublimation of circular pit walls IMO seems vulnerable to some future images, if the activity becomes devastatingly more energetic than what we see now.

[Bomb20]

To condemn that fact artificially presents that the EU dismisses it

Rossim, you are right with a critical approach but the above claim is simply untrue and unfair, a sweeping generalization. You missed the latest developments. Please, look here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1f99ReNJVw

and more important, try to get hold of Dr. Anaribas last lecture at EU 2015.

[Rossim]

To condemn that fact artificially presents that the EU dismisses it

Rossim, you are right with a critical approach but the above claim is simply untrue and unfair, a sweeping generalization. You missed the latest developments. Please, look here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1f99ReNJVw

and more important, try to get hold of Dr. Anaribas last lecture at EU 2015.

A video published 18 months ago is far from "latest developments." The electrochemistry video states the presence of water. The EU does not dismiss this fact, only several of its foolish followers. There IS WATER in the coma of 67P, it is a FACT. MIRO cannot observe hydroxyl, stop lying to yourself or your thinking is no better than the mainstream.

How MIRO works and was programmed: http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/35061-instru ... ongid=1641

Water in the coma: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014DPS....4610005L

Please do not link another Thunderbolts video, I have watched them all.