"Comets May Not Be What We Thought"

[MikeW]

This is an aside to my "Everything You Know Is Wrong" Thread.

Awesome 5 and a half minute video about how the Rosetta Mission is about to call into question not only long-held (and assumed true) theories regarding the origins and make-up of comets, but the whole paradigm of a gravity shaped universe along with it. Watch in full screen:

[MikeW]

I see no one responded to this thread, LOL! You young people, all you think about is sex, sex, sex. SMH --

Meanwhile, history marches on and the reality we inhabit is undergoing significant changes. The future will not be like the past. Yes, of course, some things may not change -- but one thing that will change is our sense of ourselves as human beings.

We operate from the assumption that we know what we are, where we came from, how we got here.

We recognize that prior to about 500 years ago, humankind lived almost exclusively in a world of MYTHOLOGY, quite different from the world view of contemporary sceintism. In that ancient world, human history is mythological in origin.

It is very difficult for us, today, to understand what that means. That is to say, we accept our world view as FACTUAL, not "mythical". We may have our various beliefs, and that's all well and good, but "the real world" is made up of sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, so on and so forth, all the way up to the billions of galaxies that make up the "hard stuff" of our universe. It has to be, right? Our very lives and technology -- our whole contemporary technological civilization -- is based on the marvels science has given us.

Within this scientistic paradigm, the closest thing there is to a "God" or "Deity," is gravity. Science recognizes four fundamental forces: The Strong Force, the Weak Force, the Electric Force and Gravity. Interestingly, very interestingly if you follow the history of science, although Gravity is the *weakest* of these four forces, IT alone is considered to be what *shapes,* through its influence across space, the GREAT features around us: Planets, Stars, Galaxies, and all that they contain.

But, what if that's wrong?

What if what we believe to be true, what our science tells us IS true, turns out in the future to be as antiquated and problematic a world view as the myth-driven view of our ancestors? What if the "God," gravity, isn't the driving force of the universe at all?

Stranger yet, WHAT IF it turns out this "mythical" world view of our ancient ancestors has messages for us -- we simply didn't know how to hear them?

The gravity-driven model of our solar system's origins has tried to explain the existence of comets. Contemporary comet science has suggested that comets are accretions of dust and chemicals that were present in the early, soupy swimming whirlpool of matter from which our solar system evolved. This is one of the reason's we've spent so much money to get a closer look at these "messengers" (as the ancients saw them).

What we're finding, though, isn't what science expected. Comets are not accreated, spherical balls of icy gases and interplanetary dust. What they are is something far stranger - almost sinister -- something that is about to shake our understanding of ourselves and our history on this planet to the core. Again, I recommend going to youtube and watching these full screen:

[ceez]

I've always been interested in this kind of stuff. hopefully before my time is up I'll either see humans on mars or what it's like at the very bottom of the ocean.

[Rareboy]

This is very cool.

[Aike]

You know, after I saw your post on the electric universe theory I had to google it to find out what on earth you're talking about. And, well, I found exactly what I was expecting. I don't usually suggest people to stick to the mainstream but I could make an exception here. Just stick to the standard model (as incomplete as it is).

The comment section in the first link is quite a learning experience. If there's someone here writing a paper on argumentation fallacies, there are very creative uses of ad hominem in the comments to use as examples.

[MikeMercury]

What we're finding, though, isn't what science expected. Comets are not accreated, spherical balls of icy gases and interplanetary dust. What they are is something far stranger - almost sinister -- something that is about to shake our understanding of ourselves and our history on this planet to the core. Again, I recommend going to youtube and watching these full screen:

Who is finding this. What are they then. Sinister - seems an odd term to use.
Video just seems to ask a load of what ifs.

According to Wikipedia
[COLOR="Red"]On 10 December 2014, scientists reported that the composition of water vapor from Churyumov–Gerasimenko, as determined by the Rosetta spacecraft, is substantially different from that found on Earth. The ratio of deuterium to hydrogen in the water from the comet was determined to be three times that found for terrestrial water. This makes it unlikely that water found on Earth came from comets such as Churyumov–Gerasimenko.[6][40][41]

Measurements carried out before Philae '​s batteries failed indicate that the dust layer could be as
much as 20 cm (7.9 in) thick. Beneath that is hard ice, or a mixture of ice and dust. Porosity appears to increase toward the center of the comet.[/COLOR]

This seems to fit with standard theory!

[MikeW]

[MENTION=21077]Aike[/MENTION] and [MENTION=21709]MikeMercury[/MENTION]: Just to be clear, I have no idea whether the Electric Universe theory is more accurate than the standard model or not. However, I do think it is going to be very interesting to follow future updates on the findings of the Rosetta mission. As Churyumov-Gerasimenko approaches the sun, the EU predictions are clear: "we expect the presence of complex crystalline structures" (silicate and clay materials), "not the rudimentary star-dust of popular comet theory." That is, the EU hypothesis predicts we will see the coma and tail form -- not as the result of out-gassing of primordial ices caused by solar heating, -- but, rather, from electrical discharges on the comet's surface. Given Rosetta's proximity, this should be very easy to confirm or deny.

I find the second paragraph in red above rather odd; the insistence that beneath the dust lies "hard ice, or a mixture of ice and dust." Well, we'll see, won't we? As a total laymen to all this, all I can say is, 67P does NOT look at all like an accretion of ice and dust. If there is an icy nucleus, it is well hidden from view.