Deep Impact on Comet Theory

AlexGP writes "Proponents of the Electric Universe theory have gone out on a limb ahead of Deep Impact. They're predicting it will show comets are just rocks and not dirty snowballs. Controversially they assert comets are highly negatively-charged asteroids on eccentric orbits. As they travel further into the Sun's radial positive electric field, they discharge into space, expelling material at supersonic speed."

Comments

from the WTF? dept.

[Anonymous Coward]

from the i-got-a-theory-it-could-be-bunnies dept.

No, really, WTF?

Re:from the WTF? dept.

[snutte]

Its a big piece of garbage!

Re:from the WTF? dept.

[svejoh]

I find your lack of Faith ... disturbing.
(And your lack of Buffy too)

Re: from the WTF? dept.

[Black Parrot]

> No, really, WTF?

It's part of Slow News Day Theory.

Re:from the WTF? dept.

[Unnngh!]

From the Electric Universe page...An electric comet would forever change the picture of the solar system and force astronomers to consider the overwhelming evidence that electricity lights not only our Sun but also all the stars in the heavens.

When they find the big power cord coming out of the sun, who'll be laughing then, huh?

Re:from the WTF? dept.

[AndroidCat]

Nah, comets have batteries, therefore it-could-be-bunnies, thump thump thump thump...

Re:from the WTF? dept.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, there's no cord needed. It's solar powered. Duh!

Re:from the WTF? dept.

[Dagny Taggert]

it's all made of cheese...stinky cheese

Re:from the WTF? dept.

[schon]

Bunnies aren't so cute
like everybody supposes,
They've got them hoppy legs
and twitchy little noses,

And what's with all the carrots?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?

Bunnies! Bunnies!
It must be BUNNIES!

(from memory, so it might be wrong.)

I'm surprised that there's only been one person who knows the origin of this.

Re:from the WTF? dept.

[madaxe42]

Not rabbits? I hear they're rampant out there in space. My girlfriend was over the moon when she found out about them.

Re:from the WTF? dept.

[Anonymous Coward]

"WTF?"

Well, they're predict the result of the experiment will differentiate from current theory in a specific way. So unlike all the other crackpot theories, this one is somewhat testable. So in a few weeks if comet(s) turn out to be mostly rocks then it might not be so crackpot anymore.

Re:from the WTF? dept.

[Cadrach]

Oh, I'm sure there have been more, we just haven't all commented :)

Back to the topic at hand for a moment, I'm pretty sure that comets are portals to universes consisting of nothing but shrimp, and the materials being expelled by them are simply little shrimp bits leaking through.

Re:from the WTF? dept.

[glitch23]

When they find the big power cord coming out of the sun, who'll be laughing then, huh?

What would be even better is if we followed the power cord for millions of light-years and came to the end and found out that it *wasn't even plugged in*.

Re:from the WTF? dept.

[Plural of Mongoose]

Ha!

You think that's funny, wait till ya' read TFA!

Re:from the WTF? dept.

[The_Wilschon]

I don't remember where I heard this, but:

A first grader was giving a report on the moon. He explained how people used think the moon was made of cheese, but then the astronauts got there, and it was all just rock. "That's what happens to cheese when you leave it out too long."

first

[Anonymous Coward]

first

Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

We won't have any answers to anything. It may half confirm existing theories. But really, it won't answer much.

Sort of like how Titan didnt answer whther there are really methane lakes currently on the surface or not. And like how the Mars probes havent told us if there is/was life. In fact whether there was water is still disputed.

We need to be sending better probes out there that can do some real science.

Space probes havent advanced in decades.

Re: Prediction

[Black Parrot]

> We won't have any answers to anything. It may half confirm existing theories. But really, it won't answer much.

Good science generally provides more questions than answers.

> Sort of like how Titan didnt answer whther there are really methane lakes currently on the surface or not. And like how the Mars probes havent told us if there is/was life. In fact whether there was water is still disputed.

The dispute about water seems to be rapidly evaporating. From what I've read, the focus seems to have shifted to when, where, how much, and the associated whys.

> Space probes havent advanced in decades.

That's a curious claim.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. This is why I have such an issue with the current Mars probes. The question we all ultimately want to know is:

"Did life exist. or still exist, on Mars?"

So why did they send probes that were incapable of answering the question? The ones they sent could only answer the question "Could life have possibly existed at one point in Mars?". The answer to that is obviously yes. We have ground based observations that can tell that there was liquid of some sort all over the surface and polar ice caps with water. We didn't need to send probes to ask that questions.

So what did we get? A bunch of cool pictures and information about the geology of one tiny area of Mars. Why didn't they attempt to answer the question that everyone is asking?

Re: Prediction

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

The dispute about water seems to be rapidly evaporating.

Was that pun intentional? Well played!

Re:Prediction

[Alien54]

Here are the specific predictions, as posted on Jul 04, 2005 on the Thunderbolts.info website

Of course, I wonder if the probe is capable of picking up some of the effects decribed below, given the the design is aligned towards conventional theory, such as it is ... The whole thunderbolts.info websight makes of interesting reading. At least they are making predictions that can be proven/disproven based on data.

Predictions on "Deep Impact"

With the imminent arrival of the "Deep Impact" spacecraft at the comet Tempel 1, it is time to test competing theories on the nature of comets. The predictions and lines of reasoning offered here will set the stage for future analysis of the "electric comet" model.

We are posting this document at 1:45 a.m. Sunday, July 3, with "Deep Impact" less than 24 hours away. [...]

At 10:52 p.m. PDT July 3, the Deep Impact spacecraft will fire an 800-pound copper projectile at the nucleus of Comet Tempel 1. If all goes as planned the projectile will impact on the nucleus 24 hours later. The impact is expected to eject into space large volumes of subsurface material.

Cameras on the projectile will record its approach toward the nucleus, and instruments on the spacecraft will record the event across a broad spectrum. Dozens of telescopes will be trained on the comet. According to NASA scientists, the released material will provide a sample of the primordial water, gas and dust from which the Sun, planets, moons, and other bodies in the solar system formed.

Though Deep Impact team members see this as a milestone event, advocates of the Electric Universe expect a "shock to the system" with revolutionary implications. They say that a comet is not a primordial object left over from the formation of the solar system. Fundamentally, it is distinguishable from a rocky asteroid only by its more elliptical orbit.

In the Electric Universe a comet is a negatively charged object moving through the extensive and constant radial electric field of the positively charged Sun. A comet becomes negatively charged during its long sojourn in the outer solar system. As it speeds into the inner solar system, the increasing voltage and charge density of the plasma (solar "wind") cause the nucleus to discharge electrically, producing the bright coma and tail.

If the electrical theorists are correct, the implications of the event will not be limited to comet theory alone. At issue is the assumption of an electrically neutral universe, upon which every conventional astronomical theory rests. An electric comet would forever change the picture of the solar system and force astronomers to consider the overwhelming evidence that electricity lights not only our Sun but also all the stars in the heavens. Moreover, the cosmic electricians insist that this would only be the beginning of a more sweeping revolution touching all of the theoretical sciences and in the end recasting our understanding of earth history and the human past.

The most appropriate test of a new theory is its predictive power (see predictions from October 2001 in Wallace Thornhill's "Comet Borrelly Rocks Core Scientific Beliefs"). Therefore, we wish to make as clear as possible, in advance of the projectile's impact, the distinctions between the electric model and the standard model. Where the issues grow complex, the primary reason is that the standard model, which failed to anticipate any of the major discoveries about comets over the past three decades or more, has fragmented into competing versions, forced upon the theorists by unsettling facts. Nevertheless a shared ideology continues to guide orthodox comet investigation while limiting scientific perception. For this reason advocates of the electric universe do not believe that a reconciliation of the current theoretical fragments is possible.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

So where should they look? Randomly send a few billion dollar probes and hope they find a spot where there used to be life? And no, not everyone was sure that life could have existed on Mars since many scientists do like hard evidence (instead of speculation).

Its also politics and practicality probably, the chances of the finding life past or present are very small. Any instrument designed to find such life would thus add weight without giving back anything useful (most likely). In addition, such a negative result would decrease interest in Mars and cut future funding potentially.

Of course, if you REALLY gave a damn about the reasons there are probably numerous interviews and websites on which NASA has given answers (or just try and contact NASA directly). However, you prefer to post such questiond on slashdot, instead of investigating them, since you either don't want to hear the answers or are too lazy to try and find them.

Re:Prediction

[Decaff]

Sort of like how Titan didnt answer whther there are really methane lakes currently on the surface or not.

It showed there aren't large methane seas, which was one theory.

And like how the Mars probes havent told us if there is/was life.

That wasn't the point of Spirit and Opportunity. That was the point of Beagle, unfortunately.

In fact whether there was water is still disputed.

Not really. The discovery of hematite by the Mars Rovers is pretty conclusive. Combine that with the satellite studies that have shown water combined with CO2 in the ice caps, and there is no real dispute at all.

We need to be sending better probes out there that can do some real science.

They are doing real science. Science doesn't provide yes/no answers. It is about gathering data and doing experiments. We are doing more of that now than ever.

Space probes havent advanced in decades.

Considering the amazing Spirit and Opportunity missions and the pictures coming back from Cassini/Huygens as compared with brief visits to the outer planets from Voyager, I find that an very odd statement.

Re:Prediction

[uncoveror]

It won't even half confirm existing theories if the aliens don't let this probe smash into the comet in the first place. After all, they took out CONTOUR.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Science doesn't provide yes/no answers.

Sure it does. The scientific method is all about asking "is this hypothesis true?" to which you'll most likely get a yes/no answer.

But when each question costs billions of dollars, how likely are you to ask a simple yes or no question like that?

Re:Prediction

[Decaff]

[Science doesn't provide yes/no answers.]

Sure it does. The scientific method is all about asking "is this hypothesis true?" to which you'll most likely get a yes/no answer.

This is not the scientific method at all. You don't get yes no answers. You set up hypotheses and then devise statistical procedures to test the hypotheses. You don't get yes or no answers from these tests. You get probabilities. There are nominal probabilities at which a hypothesis is traditionally considered to be accepted or rejected, but any good scientist realises that this is still a matter of chance and it requires subsequent experiments to back up the findings. Assuming, of course, you have put forward a sensible hypothesis, and used sensible statistical tests...

But when each question costs billions of dollars, how likely are you to ask a simple yes or no question like that?

The billions of dollars aren't about single questions (although I don't see where that figure comes from - the Mars rovers disn't cost). The money is spent to provide information about as many questions and hypotheses as possible. Each spacecraft is usually crammed full of dozens of experiments, all competing for space, power, field of view of sensors etc. They are good value for money.

Re: Prediction

[fyngyrz]

The dispute about water seems to be rapidly evaporating.

Yes, they're all running off. Wave as they go by. Bunch of drips, anyway. Every idea they had was all wet, precipitating a natural response to want to rain on their parade. It just makes me boil, you know?

Re:Prediction

[Plural of Mongoose]

I'm recalling one of the first Mars-surface experiments which used enzymes from fireflies that shine when mixed with adenosine triphosphate, which is a by-product of all known forms of metabolism.

Or, did you mean a written test?

Shocking!

[Black Parrot]

As someone on Usenet already put it, seeing how the Electric Universe proponents rationalize the failure of their predictions may be more interesting than seeing what the mission discovers.

Re:Shocking!

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone on Usenet already put it, seeing how the Electric Universe proponents rationalize the failure of their predictions may be more interesting than seeing what the mission discovers.

It's a conspiracy involving the Illuminati and a sound stage in Hollywood, duh!

Re:Shocking!

[zopf]

The same can certainly be said for the NASA scientists, who are now scrambling to explain the differences (at least an order of magnitude worth) between their predictions and the data they've received. And as an aside, rationalization (read: hypothesising) is what the scientific method is all about. So yes, seeing how the Electric Universe proponents rationalize the data they've received will not only be interesting, but essential to the growth of scientific theory in general.

That's slick

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

expelling material at supersonic speed

Supersonic speed in hard vaccuum? interesting...

Re: That's slick

[Black Parrot]

> > expelling material at supersonic speed

> Supersonic speed in hard vaccuum? interesting...

Presumably any motion at all is supersonic.

Re:That's slick

[polymath69]

Yeah... did they mean "faster than about 1000 km/h" or "faster than 0 cm/yr"? Of course, once you have a cloud of dust in space, it's no longer quite a vacuum, so maybe some sound could travel through it in some fashion, depending on its density.

The article looked like crackpot stuff to me, but what clinched it was this from the linked article on megalightning:

One might have expected this photograph to catch the attention of media around the world. But NASA officials seized both the camera and the photograph itself, prohibiting the San Francisco Chronicle from publishing it after the newspaper had received the picture.

Yeah, sure NASA has more authority than the First Amendment. Bet these crackpots buy their tinfoil in bulk.

Re:That's slick

[jnik]

Space isn't a perfect vacuum. Sound waves and shocks can exist anywhere there's enough gas to act in an ordered, collective fashion, and on solar system scales that doesn't require a very high density.

The solar wind is supersonic--it travels faster than sound waves will travel in it (which is why there's a bow shock upstream of the Earth). In the case of a comet, as you quoted, it's expelling material, and sound waves can travel in that.

Somebody makes a crack like this every time a space fluids topic gets posted on slash.

(Incidentally, why the heck is this posted under "Science" instead of "It's Funny, Laugh"? These are absolute crackpots.)

Re:That's slick

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the speed of sound in a gaseous medium is dependent on the average speed of the gas molecules (as the wave can only propagate by molecular collisions). I'd think its more or less independent of density so long as the gas remains a gas...
So given the average velocity of the few random gas molecules hanging around in space, you could probably calculate the local speed of sound (ignoring the tiny detail that the medium is far too thin to meaningfully propagate a sound). So this material is ejected faster than that.

What the "temperature" of the thin haze of hydrogen molecules in local space might be, I don' tknow. Given the lack of molecular collisions, I doubt it's even at thermal equilibrium.

Re:That's slick

[Cyberax]

Space vacuum is not 100% particle-free, so there IS a speed of sound.

For example, "supersonic" solar wind creates shock waves when it meets interstellar space (Wikipedia has some nice pictures about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliopause).

Of course, you won't hear anything in space using conventional microphones, but because most of particles in space are ionized we can watch these effects from Earth using radio telescopes.

Re: That's slick

[Black Parrot]

> Incidentally, why the heck is this posted under "Science" instead of "It's Funny, Laugh"? These are absolute crackpots.

Among others.

Re:That's slick

[AndroidCat]

Ah yes, the old "The Dog in Black ate my homework" trick!

Re: That's slick

[shawnce]

OMFG

Re:That's slick

[zogger]

NASA did take the camera and the film, I remember reading about it when it happened. It is probably googleable and I believe it was discussed on slashdot before during that time frame. Haven't kept up with it though so don't know what they did with it.

Re: That's slick

[Anonymous Coward]

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

any russians near where she lives who don't have any qualms about killing crazy ladies? do your duty to the human race and get rid of her, kthnx

Re:That's slick

[QuantumFTL]

Supersonic speed in hard vaccuum? interesting...

Good luck finding naturally occuring hard vacuum anywhere inside our galaxy, as it's permiated by the Interstellar Medium (ISM).

The ISM is a fluid much like any other (albeit extremely rarified), and is capable of transmiting sound waves, shock waves, etc, on very large scales. A short little presentation mentioning supersonic shocks ("sonic booms") caused by objects propagating through the ISM can be found here. Another site with some great pictures is my advisor's site here.

Sorry to get technical but I get really annoyed by ignorant individuals "correcting" other people's technical errors with sarcastic comments that are just as ridiculolous. (And yes, I know that the use of "supersonic" in this case was probably not taking into account the heliospheric medium's properties, but rather making a comparison to the terrestrial atmosphere at STP... I think it's pretty clear that the individuals responsible here have a poor understanding of physics.)

Re:That's slick

[Tim C]

the speed of sound in a gaseous medium is dependent on the average speed of the gas molecules

That "average speed" is what we refer to as temperature - the higher the speed, the higher the temperature.

I'd think its more or less independent of density so long as the gas remains a gas...

Compress a gas (decrease its density) and you raise its temperature. Thus you can indeed change the speed of sound in a gas by changing its density.

Re:That's slick

[ETEQ]

You have to be careful here, though - "supersonic" and "subsonic" in terms of interplanetary space have a different meaning... the material has too little density to really talk about sound waves propogating through it, but you're right you can take about it in terms of charged particles' speed in relation to the average speed of the solar wind. BUT - that doesn't make any sense for macro-scale objects... Unless you think all macros-scale object in space objects are electrically charged. I doubt these people have thought that far, but they are self-consistant in that respect...

Re:That's slick

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to get technical but I get really annoyed by ignorant individuals "correcting" other people's technical errors with sarcastic comments that are just as ridiculolous.

You wouldn't know a joke if it put on a silly hat, painted its bottom blue and shouted "I'm a joke!" would you?

Get off your high horse and lighten up already.

Re:That's slick

[waferhead]

Intersting photo, but thers is a better, simpler, OBVIOUS explanation of that photo than unprovable phenomena.

Something blew off the shuttle at hypersonic speed, the zig-zag is the white hot (something).

The increasing brightness is the now more damaged shuttle burning up, faster.

Re:That's slick

[Bad D.N.A.]

"Sorry to get technical but I get really annoyed by ignorant individuals "correcting" other people's technical errors..."

Alright so your going to get annoyed by this one as well..

"The ISM is a fluid much like any other"

No, It's not just some ordinary fluid. You try to apply the basic hydrodynamic equations to these systems and you will get nonsense. The term is magneto-hydrodynamics (MHD), it's a electrically conductive plasma, not just an ordinary fluid.

Re:That's slick

[QuantumFTL]

No, It's not just some ordinary fluid. You try to apply the basic hydrodynamic equations to these systems and you will get nonsense. The term is magneto-hydrodynamics (MHD), it's a electrically conductive plasma, not just an ordinary fluid.

Yes I am aware of this, if you like you can see results from a paper that I collaborated on (parallelization of 3D MHD code with full equations, Gudenov method) here. I must admit that during my degree process I did not take astrophysics classes, only working as a research assistant. I do think, however, that some levels of detail are inappropriate for this audience) as when discussing linear wave propagation in a fluid, it is not customary to require full navier-stokes equations, but rather the more familiar wave equation (which, for linear wave propagation, even magnetohydrodynamic fluids can be reduced to by some approximation). I suppose it could be argued that for discussion of supersonic shocks one would need a better approximation but... I stand by my assertion that ISM can be characterized as a fluid (at least I know this is what is taught in university classes as you can see in course notes on the web). for exotic phenomena and long-range interactions, or regions with large electromagnetic fields, perhaps full MHD equations are necessary, but I fail to see what thez have to do with the discussion of this article.

Re:That's slick

[^DA]

So in space people CAN hear me scream...thats comforting!

Re:That's slick

[Bad D.N.A.]

"I suppose it could be argued that for discussion of supersonic shocks one would need a better approximation..."

Thats kind of an understatement. Produce the GCR spectra from a hydrodynamic fluid and badda-bing... a nobel prize awaits you.

"for exotic phenomena and long-range interactions, or regions with large electromagnetic fields, perhaps full MHD equations are necessary"

Lets first of all admit that we have no friggin idea what the ISM is like as we have not measured it. We can only assume that it works similiar to the plasmas we do have access to inside our own heliosphere and here MHD is very important for damn near everything, sure it's got it's limitations (I'm more of a kinetic fan myself) but it still does a fair job in lots of environments. Go ahead and try to compress the Earth's magnetosphere without a strong negative Bz (i.e. using simple hydrodynamic equations)... aint' going to happen.

"taught in university classes"
I probably should go back and dust off the old notes, it has been over 10 years since I fought through my plasma theory course.

"I fail to see what thez have to do with the discussion of this article"

I cant even remember what the origional article was about. I guess I'm getting senile.

BS?

[MustardMan]

I admit, I'm a materials guy, not an astrophysicist, but I found it odd that I'd never heard of this "electric universe" model, and the best reference the submittor could find was from "thunderbolt.info". I decided to google for it, and the first link that came up was this gem, which links the electric universe to geocentric, anti-evolutionary, creationist crap. I can't find a single reputable source describing this so-called theory, just a bunch of crackpot websites. I call bullshit.

Re:BS?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think it's funny that this group spouts their theories as a certainty only a couple days before the mission to discover what it really is. If they kept their mouths shut and relied on older material, their predictions would just fade with memory if proven wrong. If they were proven right, then they can yell about it.

Re:BS?

[cowscows]

Well, if you would bother to read all the bullshit, you'd learn that this whole theory of the universe is being stonewalled by the institutionalized fields of science . All of the so called "cosmologists" are too comfortable with their huge grants and budgets, not to mention their lucrative telescope manufacturer endorsements. They want to keep control of their billions of dollars, and their fancy cars, and their huge mansions, so they won't let any idea that might threaten that see the light of day.

You think the church was bad during the dark ages? They've got nothing on these astrophysicists. They're all a bunch of selfish bastards, more interested in taking our hard earned money than finding out the truth. Of course, joe public isn't smart enough to see through it, so everyone keeps sending them wheelbarrows full of money, so nothing will ever change, EVER!

Or maybe I'm thinking of the RIAA or something. I'm not sure.

Re:BS?

[MustardMan]

As a followup to my previous post, I've done some more googling. I found one of the biggest proponents of this wackjob theory happens to be one Jim McCanney, whose other claims include such gems as "weather is being manipulated". For a good thorough debunking of this crackpot, you might want to check out one of my favorite sites, Bad Astronomy.

The best part about the internet is, it's given everyone a voice.

The worst part about the internet is, it's given people like this a voice.

Re:BS?

[MustardMan]

I think (hope?) you're kidding, but this seems like EXACTLY the kind of argument these nuts would make. As someone who personally knows quite a few cosmologists and astrophysicsts, I can tell you first-hand that the amount of money they make compared to the amount of work they do, and the amount of schooling they have, is TERRIBLE. My girlfriend is a nurse, ,with a BS... she'll be making more than me when I have my PhD in physics.

Re:BS?

[abulafia]

+5 babbled about the "institiution"

+5 ignored by peers, and is bitter

+5 (indirectly) referenced Galileo

Diagnosis: kook.

Re:BS?

[110010001000]

Hilarious. Too bad the mods think its flamebait (or flaimbait as they spell it).

Re:BS?

[internic]

From what little I know, the so-called "Electric Universe" theory (or theories) is a variant on Plasma Cosmology [wikipedia.org]. Plasma Cosmology is a fringe scientific theory that asserts that plasma physics should play a more prominent role in cosmology and that the electromagnetic force should be considered more important than gravity in the evolution of the universe. This idea apparently originated with Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfvén.

Of course, even Nobel Prize winners make mistakes (or at least the one I know does :-) ). Plasma Cosmology is almost uniformly viewed as incorrect and irrelevant by physicists and astronomers. The reasons, as far as I can tell, are that standard cosmology has been quite successful in predicting things like the cosmic microwave background and elemental abundances, not to mention things like cosmological redshift. Plasma cosmology cannot reproduce these things without adding on a lot of convoluted features that rely on some unproven (and seemingly outlandish) new plasma physics that has never been seen on Earth. In short, Plasma Cosmology doesn't explain a lot observations correctly in a simple way. It hasn't proven itself useful, which in the end is the measure of a good scientific theory.

So the short answer is, "Yes, it's BS". Now cue the die hard supporters claiming there's some sort of conspiracy to cover-up their theory, which is pretty silly if you know how science really works.

Re:BS?

[internic]

Doh, botched the link. Wikipedia article on Plasma Cosmology that mentions "The Electric Universe.

Re:BS?

[AndroidCat]

While you're up, check Immanuel Velikovsky too.

Re:BS?

[Peter_Pork]

The best part about the internet is, it's given everyone a voice. The worst part about the internet is, it's given people like this a voice.

But, it takes 5 minutes of googling to find the problems with these alternative theories. In a sense, the Internet is the ultimate dream of peer reviewing, which is the foundation of modern science.

Re:BS?

[cowscows]

Don't worry, I wasn't being serious. I thought what I wrote was over the top enough to be obvious, but I guess there are enough morons posting around here that it's hard to be sure if someone's actually that insane.

I know most of the pure sciences have to deal with insufficient funding, and I am saddened by that fact. A lot of jobs are like that unfortunately. You don't get paid for the amount of work you do, you get paid for the amount of money your work makes for someone else.

That's a tough reality for theoretical scientists, no doubt.

Re:BS?

[MustardMan]

ESPECIALLY during the bush administration! I'm currently facing the hard reality of a shift in focus from computational physics (low cost due to using commodity hardware running linux) to experimental physics (high cost due to expensive instrumentation). I had originally wanted to go into a tenure-track program at some small college near my family's hometown, but as I become more interested in experimental work and shift away from computational, I'm realizing a small school might not be prestigious enough to get the kind of funding money I would need. In either case, the majority of the money we get goes towards equipment, not salary.

Re:BS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. Unfortunately, it seems the term "electric universe" has been latched onto by the same sort of nut jobs that think that quantum theory validates The Healing Power of Crystals etc.

But there is respectable research into electromagnetic effects in small to medium (i.e. stellar to galactic) scale cosmology too.

Re:BS?

[sholden]

And the biggest proponent of those whackjob motion theories (you know, F=ma and all that crap when clearly when you stop pushing something it slows down) happens to be Isaac Newton, whose other claims include such gems as transmuting lead into gold.

Re:BS?

[mbrother]

Dammit! Where's my mansion??? And I want a yacht, too. If I step on only six more crackpots, I'm sure I can afford the yacht -- that's what my textbook said back in grad school (you have to know the "secret code" of differential equations to "get the message" of course).

Now I have to get back to Donald Trump about that meeting...and I'll ask about the mansion, too.

Re:BS?

[king-manic]

Re:BS? (Score:1, Flamebait)
by cowscows (103644) on Sunday July 03, @10:02AM (#12973430)
(http://shawn.redhive.com/)
Well, if you would bother to read all the bullshit, you'd learn that this whole theory of the universe is being stonewalled by the institutionalized fields of science . All of the so called "cosmologists" are too comfortable with their huge grants and budgets, not to mention their lucrative telescope manufacturer endorsements. They want to keep control of their billions of dollars, and their fancy cars, and their huge mansions, so they won't let any idea that might threaten that see the light of day.

You think the church was bad during the dark ages? They've got nothing on these astrophysicists. They're all a bunch of selfish bastards, more interested in taking our hard earned money than finding out the truth. Of course, joe public isn't smart enough to see through it, so everyone keeps sending them wheelbarrows full of money, so nothing will ever change, EVER!

Or maybe I'm thinking of the RIAA or something. I'm not sure.
[ Reply to This ]


it's a pitty the parent got -1 flamebait. It's obvious sarcastic satire of any and all "alternative" thinker arguements we find here. Against evolution, against quantum mechanics, against a round earth theory ect.. I think anyone with mod points shoudl change it to +3 funny.

Re:BS?

[Wolfkin]

Yeah, it's almost as if they want their hypothesis to be, you know, TESTED or something? Who could imagine an actual scientist allowing his theory to be put to experiment? Strange, huh?

(Sarcasm, all of it)

Re:BS?

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

(you have to know the "secret code" of differential equations to "get the message" of course)
You think you are being exact but you are too partial. Your theory is a pseudo theory and your ideas are FIOled again; Hormander refuses to support your ideas. Now the FBI is interested but Iagolnitzer remains silent. Most importantly, Singer isn't singing.

Re:BS?

[edunbar93]

And the worst part of Slashdot is that for some odd reason, crap like this keeps getting on the front page, despite the fact that the Editors should know better.

Re:BS?

[mbrother]

On the reverse side, our Dean keeps pushing our department toward computational physics because the start-up expenses are small. But we don't really have ANY experimental physicists in the departments, and our students are missing out as a result. Not everyone wants to do observational astronomy for an undergraduate reserarch experience.

Re:BS?

[glitch23]

It's interesting how the pro-evolution people always call the Creationists crackpots but you don't ever hear the latter calling the former any names at least I haven't heard any. But let me be the first to say that the pro-evolutionists are obviously prejudiced against anything that might fly in the face of their grand ape-to-human theory. Do they care they are prejudiced and call anyone who isn't like them a crackpot? I doubt it because they think that they are never wrong so from their point of view they are perfect and nothing will tarnish that.

Re:BS?

[MustardMan]

Nowhere did I say I am pro-evolution. Creationists ARE crackpots, plain and simple. Every shred of scientific evidence ever discovered is completely opposed to the beliefs of creationists. As a scientist, I would be THRILLED for something to come along that completely revolutionizes the way we look at the world. However, I require some real science to be involved in this discovery. Creationists, and their ilk, have no sound grounding in science, and anyone with a fair bit of REAL scientific knowledge can completely debunk them by showing there are experimental results that do not agree with their views.

It's not name-calling if they genuinely ARE crackpots. And as far as your "holier than thou" nonsense about namecalling, I've had more than one creationist tell me I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity for not believing what they do. That seems a bit more extreme than calling someone a crackpot, to me.

Prejudiced? Lets look at a few ideas that have forced scientists to fundamentally change the way we look at the universe: Newtonian physics, special relativity, quantum mechanics, and just 30 or so years ago, nonlinear dynamics. Attached to our ideas we might be, but only because they provide the greatest understanding of the universe humankind has ever achieved. We change our view when we are provided with enough evidence to justify doing so. Organized religion, howver, clings to the same dogma for thousands of years, completely unwilling to yeild in the face of mountains of proof saying they got it wrong. Some even go so far as to persecute, violently, those who provide evidence against their views.

Re:BS?

[Bigos]

try www.answers.com

Re:BS?

[MustardMan]

Nowhere have I ever seen it written that newton claimed to have succesfully transmuted lead into gold. Indeed, he was very secretive about his alchemy research, rarely telling anyone what he was studying. You are making the most common argument I've ever seen by people who defend pseudo-science. It goes something like this: newton tried to transmute lead into gold, yet you all worship him, so clearly you are hypocrites.

Now's the part where I point out the fallacy of this argument. Newton discovered very real, very reproducible behaviors in dynamics, and was able to formulate a theory that described it. We, as scientists, give him credit for this incredible discovery. That he studied alchemy has no bearing on the import of his discoveries.

The difference between newton and today's pseudo-science whackjobs is, newton contributed something positive, they DID NOT. You can try to compare them to newton all you want, but at the end of the day, they have never produced any original thoughts which even come close to the realm of reality.

And while we're tearing your argument apart, lets also note that newton's study of alchemy wasn't all that crazy after all. The fundamental process of science is to build on the discoveries of those before you, to refine and revise their views. In newton's time, there was no tested theory as to the composition of matter. There was no understanding of how it worked. Therefore, he picked a very tantalizing possibility that was common in legends, and tried to explore its viability. Sometimes science is about exploring the wrong theory, as much as it the right one. You will never know something is incorrect, unless you try it.

Sure, it's easy for us today, with an extra couple of hundred years of discoveries to build upon, to say newton was obviously wrong to try to transmute lead into gold, but at his time, working from the previous knowledge he had available, it wasn't at all clear that what he was trying was impossible.

If newton were alive today, he would most likely not be attempting his alchemy research. If he were, he WOULD be laughed at, as we now know much more than we did then.

Re:BS?

[MustardMan]

My undergrad school was a lot like that, they had a healthy computational physics group, and were pushing toward a cosmology group, again because of the low startup costs. Luckily for me, now I'm at a school where there are a lot of biophysicists bringing the big private funding dollars to the university, which trickles down to the rest of us in the way of notoriety and prestige.

Re:BS?

[DeadChobi]

Yes sir, I'll ice your drink. Iagolnitzer's house. Tonight?

Re:BS?

[jericho4.0]

Hahahahahahahaha. Get back on the short bus. You know why we call you names? Because you're fucking idiots, and should be old enough to know better.

Re:BS?

[Alsee]

Yep.

Another good one is where the Electric Universe explains that dinosaurs died out because the force of gravity abruptly multiplied. Better yet it ALSO says that the lower gravity may have helped in the building of ancient giant monuments like Stonehenge. Another good one is the Electric Universe explaining that "stellar electric discharges manufacture all of the heavy elements seen in their spectra" and that "nuclear energy is not the source of their radiance". It goes on to explain that the best place to look for extraterrestrial life is *inside* Red Dwarf stars, where "life-giving molecules, including water, will mist down through an atmosphere drawn from their parent star".

If anyone wants to dig up and post more such whoppers I suggest browsing through this Electric Universe links page. I only read the SETI link but I'd sure the rest of them house a vertiable a treasure trove of comedy.

-

Re:BS?

[sholden]

All I was trying to point out is just because a nutjob who thinks governments are manipulating the weather or aliens are running the UN also thinks theory X is true doesn't mean theory X is complete whackjobbery.

It also doesn't mean theory X isn't complete whackjobbery of course.

There are lots of places to argue against this "electric universe" theory - but pointing out that one of the people who argue for it is a nutjob isn't one of those places.

As for Newton, he made an amazing contribution to science. He was also deeply involved in atrology and alchemy, searching for "bible codes", and literally interpreting the Bible.

Which brings up the flip side, just because an amazingly smart scientific mind believes something doesn't mean it isn't whackjobbery...

Re:BS?

[schon]

The funniest thing is that this guy is prejudging them as crackpots, and saying "why don't they do what crackpots do?" so that (presumably) if they are right, he can say "they're crackpots, they didn't *really* predict it, they're just *saying* they predicted it after the fact."

The difference between a crackpot and a scientist is that a scientist states his hypothesis, then tests it, and alters the hypothesis based on the results of the test.

It's hypocritical to claim they're crackpots because they say something that runs against current scientific belief, then cry foul when they actually act like scientists and want to test their hypotheses.

Re:BS?

[SteeldrivingJon]

It's hypocritical to claim they're crackpots because they say something that runs against current scientific belief, then cry foul when they actually act like scientists and want to test their hypotheses.

Well, they really had nothing to do with "testing their hypotheses". It wasn't *their* project, was it?

Given that the experiment was going to happen, it makes little difference whether they publicize their hypothesis up front. It's not like the crackpots could stop it.

It's not like their nonsense is *new*. They've evidently talked about it before. So they'd have plenty of proof if, bizarrely, the experiment supported their theories.

Re:BS?

[hesiod]

> the pro-evolution people always call the Creationists crackpots but you don't ever hear the latter calling the former any names at least I haven't heard any

Then it's only because you haven't been listening (or purposefully ignoring the insults because you agree with them). The creationists in question continually call these scientists -- you know, people who have devoted their lives to finding out and explaining reality -- liars, stupid, evil, and more. There is no other way to take it. They also say the scientists (many or most of whom believe in a God of some form) will go to hell for trying to learn and understand. That sort of ignorance is simply amazing.

However, what is WORSE than calling someone a name or saying they will suffer eternally, is how dispicable these people are to put their words into the mouth of their god for their own agenda (which appears to be spreading ignorance). That is an insult not only to science, but an insult to the sane members of their own religious sect.

To take a more trollish (yet honest) POV, if I said the Earth's core was made of Jello, you would probably call me stupid, and rightly so. Therefore, when I hear adults who believe in what amounts to fairy tales, I consider them stupid and, IMO, rightly so.

I think they are right

[the_2nd_coming]

I mean, the temperature out there in the orbit of those comets is very high near the sun, if it was an ice ball, then it would melt before it left the the region.

Re:I think they are right

[kbmccarty]

I mean, the temperature out there in the orbit of those comets is very high near the sun, if it was an ice ball, then it would melt before it left the the region.

Assuming you are serious...

Water can't exist in a liquid state in a vacuum, so it sublimates rather than melting. Which is the whole idea of comets: as they near the sun, the volatile materials they contain boils away, producing the familiar tail of a comet. Since the comet is a several km^3 ball of ice, it can pass near the sun a large number of times before being reduced to whatever rock is contained in it.

(This may not be precisely correct; it's been a while since I took an astronomy course; but this is the general idea.)

Dirty snow balls...

[Krankheit]

It snows in space? I didn't know there were clouds in space! I wish I lived in space. Without gravity, the snow would never land on my driveway, so I wouldn't have to plow it.

Re:Dirty snow balls...

[gkuz]

I wish I lived in space.

You do.

Re:Dirty snow balls...

[p3d0]

Don't quit your day job.

Re:Dirty snow balls...

[p3d0]

I wish I lived in space. Without gravity, the snow would never land on my driveway, so I wouldn't have to plow it.

(And with that, Newton turns in his grave at the suggestion that there's no gravity in space.)

Re:Dirty snow balls...

[korekrash]

Unless you drifted, in which case you could end up in a planetary ring. Then you'd have a whole lot of plowing to do!

Re:Dirty snow balls...

[HermanAB]

Actually, there are enormous water clouds in space, but if you are living in the Northern Hemisphere, then may not know about them. From southern lattitudes, the large and small clouds of Magellan are clearly visible at night. These are absolutely fantastically large clouds of water ice/snow floating amongst the stars. Also, if we can see two so easily with the naked eye, then there must be many more.

Re:Dirty snow balls...

[bitrodya]

Are you referring to the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds? If so, I believe those are galaxies, not water/ice clouds.

Re:Dirty snow balls...

[HermanAB]

Yes, they are in fact galaxies, but with enormous amounts of water drifting amongst the stars, creating large nebulae.

Electric Universe links

[slavemowgli]

More info on the "Electric Universe" topic:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Universe
• http://www.electricuniverse.de/

• :)

Re: Electric Universe links

[Black Parrot]

> More info on the "Electric Universe" topic:

Jokes aside (and you gotta admit this story is jokebait), Google Groups will show you what it's all about. Don't know why Taco linked the term to a JPL site.

why not just wait

[Anonymous Coward]

the "landing" is supposed to be tomorrow, so why all the speculation when we will probably know a lot more tomorrow.

Spectrograph already disproves these crackpots

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently the Electric Universe doesn't believe in Spectroscopy, which has already shown the object to be an icy snowball ejecting gas.

Re:Spectrograph already disproves these crackpots

[Portal1]

As far as I understand from the article it is actualy the other way around.

I suggest to read the article, I found it informative

anyway we soon will know more.

Re:Spectrograph already disproves these crackpots

[klept]

There is a true story about 2 famous astromers having this discussion; Astr 1: Any good cosmotologist can make up any theory about the Universe that he wants to. Astr 2: Who said he has to be good.

We finally fight back against comets and asteroids

[backslashdot]

Finally, we get to extract vengeance upon the comets for killing off our dinosaur cousins. Comets gotta learn that for every action there's a reaction. Halley, you're next! And to all the planets out there .. you're either with us or against us.

Anyway, about Electric universe folks ..their theory is interesting .. I dont think they are whacko ..science thrives because of diversity in thought .. However, if you read their predictions, nothing short of a massive water splash of water folllowed be an ice tsunami on the asteroid would cause them to change their mind. I wish they'd put some numbers (if the crater is larger than "100 feet" then we are wrong. "If the ice detected in the debris is greater than X percent, we are wrong" etc.

Non of that is done .. if they genuinely wish to be taken seriously they should find out the sensitivit of the instruments (publicly available) and make solid predictions.

An some say comets are antimatter

[G4from128k]

Electric universe isn't the only interesting group out there. Some claim that comets are made of antimatter. If so the Tempel 1 collision should be a whopper. On the otherhand the lack of hard evidence (or hard radiation) coming from comets makes this theory a bit improbable. If comets were antimatter, I suspect we would have noticed the 0.51 and 938 MeV gamma rays produced when particles in the solar wind struck the comet.

Re:An some say comets are antimatter

[greginnj]

Some claim that comets are made of antimatter. If so the Tempel 1 collision should be a whopper.

Shoemaker-Levy 9 crashing into Jupiter should have settled that already, no? Of course the site you reference claims that it was an 'antimatter comet' too, but they don't discuss the missing radiation profile ...

Re:An some say comets are antimatter

[imsabbel]

Radiation Profile?
If it SL9 had been antimatter, half of the world would be blind because of the flash-of-doom...

Re:An some say comets are antimatter

[Walkingshark]

Maybe thats why NASA timed this thing to hit on the 4th of July? They wanted to have the biggest fireworks in the history of the Universe :)

It is interesting actually

[p3d0]

Someone says this any time the term "supersonic" comes up in connection with outer space. This Electric Universe theory might have a lot of things to criticize, but the notion of supersonic speeds in space isn't one of them. See bow shock and termination shock for instance.

Interplanetanetary space (even interstellar space) is nowhere near a "hard vacuum".

Re:It is interesting actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Interplanetanetary space (even interstellar space) is nowhere near a "hard vacuum".

You got a point. If it were a "hard vacuum" , then it would be a Kirby. *rimshot* ;)

Re:It is interesting actually

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

Yup. Speed of sound for some particular gas mixture 'x' is related only to temperature folks. That is, T is the only variable that changes, if you hold the gas mixture constant.

a = sqrt(gamma*R*T)

where R is the universal gas constant (R' = 8.3143kJ/(kmol*K)) divided by the molecular weight of the reaction gases.

T is the absolute temperature, and gamma is the ratio of specific heats (~1.4 for air, god only knows for comet dust).

I understand that Cp and Cv are constants with respect to temperature, pressure and volume. At any rate, I use damned near the same gamma (Cp/Cv) in rocket engine calculations at 300PSI as I do in an engine running at 3000PSI -- the slight difference being because of different species being created at the higher temperature and pressure.

Temperature isn't low in space, either. It is just HIGHLY insulative -- like living inside a thermos ;~). If you are in the sun (by which I mean, the sun is shining on you), you are HOT HOT HOT. So the speed of sound may actually be very, very high.

Re:It is interesting actually

[LurkerXXX]

There are only about 5 particles/cm3 near the Earth, and it decreases from there by an inverse square law farther from the Sun. That's pretty darn hard of a vaccuum by common thinking. Yes, it will have a effect on a space probe going millions of miles, but calling it a hard vacuum isn't really that much of an overstatement.

Re:It is interesting actually

[Lord Pillage]

Simple equation for speed of sound in air is:

V(sound) = 331.4m/s + 0.60m/(s * C) * T(c)

Where V(sound) is the speed of sound, T(c) is the temperature in celcius. [m/(s * C) is metres per second degree celcius]

eg.

If T(c) of air is 25.0 C then

V = 331.4m/s + 15m/s

V = 346m/s

Re:It is interesting actually

[p3d0]

Obviously that's a matter of perspective. A real vacuum wouldn't have a bow shock. Also, the interstellar and intergalactic media are orders of magnitude more tenuous than the interplanetary medium.

But I see your point. If those 5 particles are hydrogen ions (ie. protons), then the Earth sweeps through about 30 grams of hydrogen per second.

Re:It is interesting actually

[LurkerXXX]

It is very much a matter of perspecive because there is no firm defintion for 'hard' vaccum. I take it to mean extremely low pressure (high/very-high/ultra-high vacuum)

By a 'real vacuum wouldn't have a bow shock' I take it you mean total/complete vacuum, which I think of as included as one end of the spectrum of vacuums that I would call 'hard'

Re:It is interesting actually

[p3d0]

I'm not sure I get your point. Did you notice I agreed with you?

what a bunch of hooey

[LMCBoy]

Yeah, interesting theory. Too bad no one has ever taken a spectrum of a comet tail to find out if it's sublimated ices or 'supersonic' bits of rock.

How does their 'theory' purport to explain the second tail of comets, which points along the comet's direction of motion, rather than away from the Sun? Maybe only *some* of the bits of rock are electrically charged? Maybe magic comet elves rub the charge off of some bits?

I had never heard of the Electric Universe, but they seem on par with the flat-earthers and creationists.

Re:what a bunch of hooey

[tweek]

My understanding was that the tail was caused by solar winds.

of course.

[torpor]

where else did you think they formed, 'the ground'?

you need space to make snowflakes, silly ..

The *what*?

[Deep Fried Geekboy]

Here is the [cough] official [cough] statement of the Electric Universe Model, which appears to have been thought up by an electrical engineer during his lunchtime:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/

Yuo faiL iet!?

[Anonymous Coward]

deliver. Some o7 You get distracted

Spectra

[echobject]

And how do they account for the spectra of the comet? Seems pretty simple to me: asteroid gives spectra x... comet gives spectra y. (NOT THE SAME)

Re:Spectra

[0racle]

Because they're *CHARGED* asteroids.

Negatively Charged and on an Eccentric Orbit

[frank_adrian314159]

Sounds like a description of your average Slashdot reader...

it's all relative

[zenneth]

As they travel further into the Sun's radial positive electric field, they discharge into space, expelling material at supersonic speed.

Isn't the comet already traveling at some ridiculous rate? Supersonic? or maybe was it ludicrous speed?

I'm going to go out on a limb too

[yotto]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and before Deep Impact hits the comet I'm going to say these guys are totally, completely, 100% wrong.

Re:I'm going to go out on a limb too

[ceejayoz]

That's no limb, you're still on solid ground.

Gotta climb before walking away from the trunk.

From BtVS, of course.

[Grendel Drago]

It's a line from Once More, With Feeling, the Buffy the Vampire Slayer musical.

Happy to help!

--grendel drago

Re:From BtVS, of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's too much stuff on the internet.

Crackpottery!

[Grendel Drago]

In the Electric Universe, our Earth is an integral part of solar system circuitry, fed by currents streaming along our arm of the Milky Way.

Sounds a bit crackpotty to me. I checked off at least three, probably four of those factors appearing in there.

--grendel drago

Conspiracy theory.

[PxM]

From a different page on that site: "But as astronauts now prepare to ride another shuttle into space, few Americans are aware of the most critical issue raised by the Columbia disaster. Did a super-bolt of lightning--called "megalightning"--strike Columbia, causing the breakup of the craft?"

Sounds somewhat plausable until you get to "But NASA officials seized both the camera and the photograph itself, prohibiting the San Francisco Chronicle from publishing it after the newspaper had received the picture."

That's one step away from saying that we never went into space and that Columbia was done with ILM SFX and fireworks.

Re:Conspiracy theory.

[harshoo]

While everyone is watching the Impact, could there be another event in space which might be missed if most telescopes are trained on one object? this also concerns military attention, will any other instituition/organisation be able to take advantage of diverted attention to have some kinda escapade into / from space stealthily ? Will concerned authorites have enough response time ?

More crackpot theories...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...here. But at least this one makes a prediction that's about to be tested, so I should give it some credit. But crackpots have a tendency of adapting ingeniously to data that doesn't fit the theory. We'll see...

Re:More crackpot theories...

[Anonymous Coward]

most scientists seem to have this same tendency.

Why was this greenlighted?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, seriously? Is there really not enough happening in the world this morning that you have to give 5 minutes of fame to a BUNCH OF RETARDED IDIOTS who's claims are obviously bunk if you think about it for 2 seconds.

And people actually subscribe - pay money to this website - when it has shit like this for an article?

Re:Why was this greenlighted?

[SteeldrivingJon]

And even if it's a slow newsday, they could always post a dupe or five.

Hell, a dupe of an old pre-Y2K story would be better than this kooky stuff.

Hey, maybe the probe will hit the comet and release Mothra! That's my theory.

Too much to hope...

[ediron2]

Is it too much to hope that these biscuit-headed nimrods will STFU forever if, erm, WHEN their predictions about Deep Impact are wrong?

Also, a swift kick to the 'nads for Taco for considering this news, nerdy, or something that mattered.

Beginning of the end?

[TheUglyAmerican]

What concerns me are comet creatures we're going to really piss off. I'm thinking the dinosaurs had a space program and did something like this and you know what happened next.

Think about this one ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Picture in your mind 3 objects in an isolated vacuum. One object is comparatively much larger than the other two. Relative to us (as observers) that largest object sits at a fixed position. It might move, but let's assume we move with it so we won't notice any movement. The other two very small objects are of the same size and mass as each other. They both orbit the large object at the same distance from the centre of the large object at the same speed. Hence, the observerd distance between the two orbiters never changes. The force of attraction toward the centre of the large object (due to the circular motion of these 'satellites') is given by Fc = m((v)^2/r). The force of attraction toward the centre of the large object (due to gravitational attraction) is given by Fg = m(GM/r^2). Hence the total force acting upon each orbiter is given by Ft = Fc + Fg.

Herein lies the problem: since all objects in the universe are gravitationally attracted to one another, the two orbiters must be attracted to one another. But, since they're travelling at the same speed, how can they possibly keep that same distance apart if they are gravitationally attracted to one another?! My theory: they are of equal electrical charge and therefore repelled from each other with an electrostatic force commensurate with that of their mutual gravitational attraction. But where did this charge come from? It seems to me that the charges are only there once we measure them!

Debate the correctness of the above reasoning - that electrostatic metrology is arbitrarily relativistic. This is a debate for scientific people only (no environmentalists or homosexuals).

Re:Think about this one ...

[Decaff]

But, since they're travelling at the same speed, how can they possibly keep that same distance apart if they are gravitationally attracted to one another?!

Here is a hint. Big things, lots of gravity. Small things, not very much gravity at all.

You are also mistaken that the distance between two very small objects orbiting a larger one does not change due to gravity. Of course it does. This is how planets and moons form from lots of small things (dust grains) orbiting larger bodies (Stars and planets).

This is a debate for scientific people only (no environmentalists or homosexuals).

Well, I'm gay and a scientist. I guess I could be at least 1/2 right then.

Re:Think about this one ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are also mistaken that the distance between two very small objects orbiting a larger one does not change due to gravity. Of course it does. This is how planets and moons form from lots of small things (dust grains) orbiting larger bodies (Stars and planets).

No. You're mistaken. In the hypothetical, the distance between the two is observed to not change. The distance between the two hypothetical objects can only not change if there is a weak electrostatic force of repulsion that balances the weak gravitational force between them. A gravitational force that you have conceded exits between the two bodies.

This is the whole point of the thought experiment: that an electrostatic force can be found from any arbitrary point of reference as the action of an otherwise unrelated system (gravity).

Re:Think about this one ...

[Decaff]

No. You're mistaken. In the hypothetical, the distance between the two is observed to not change.

The distance is always observed to change. You are inventing some strange electromagnetic force that is not needed, to explain an effect that does not occur.

You say:
They both orbit the large object at the same distance from the centre of the large object at the same speed. Hence, the observerd distance between the two orbiters never changes.

This is an assumption that is wrong. In nature this does not happen. Unless the smaller objects are precisely symmetrically placed around the larger one, they will always start to drift together because of gravity (and even the symmetrical situation is unstable). This is why moons and planets form.

Re:Think about this one ...

[proctologist]

No wonder they found rings around uranus.

Re:Think about this one ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm gay and a scientist. I guess I could be at least 1/2 right then.

I don't see much reason to be gay about it. This is serious business, people!

Fp 31tch

[Anonymous Coward]

the rAin..we can ube Romeo and Juliet

Shocked and dismayed

[Anonymous Coward]

...that there is no Foot icon next to the story. This definitely does not qualify for the science category.

Another hypothesis

[hailstop]

Here's one based on the 'satellite model' of comets. http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/Dee pImpact.asp

Hannes Alfven and Science Fiction; Re:BS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hannes Alfven, Swedish Nobel laureate physicist, also wrote Science Fiction under the pseudonym O. Johannesson (not to be confused with Eric O. Johannesson, Professor Emeritus, Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley).

Hannes Alfven is worth considering carefully in the context of allegedly crackpot theories. Nobody believed him about waves in plasma, until they found them (and named them after him). Nobody believed him about the solar wind causation of aurorae, until (50 years later) it became the conventional view, and his invention of the notion essentially forgotten. Nobody believed him, circa 1960, when he testified to the California legislature that radioactive waste from fission reactors would be a problem. And nobody believed him when he suggested that the universe is infinite in age, and an equal mixture of matter and antimatter, with the Big Bang being the result of a period of cosmic contraction that increased annihilation occurrences until radiation pressure forced the system to expand again. Anyone right several times in the face of skepticism may be assumed to have thought things through, and maybe be right again.

I'm not affiliated in any way with the Electric Universe people, but I do think that Hannes Alfven is under-rated, and deserves reconsideration for some of his ideas.

-- Professor Jonathan Vos Post
former Adjunct Professor of Astronomy
webmaster magicdragon.com

And I thought the stochastic electrodynamics crowd

[suitepotato]

had some weird people in it.

Unfortunately, while electrostatic and magnetic forces are important, they are additive to the picture and not dominant. That is, all charges are going to act on each other and influence them, but gravity and so forth have influence as well, especially because space-time curvature must be obeyed by electrostatic and magnetic forces. Too bad they are trying so hard to ignore decades of evidence that doesn't fit their theory. First sign of it not being fit to be taken seriously.

quackulence

[opaqueice]

The originator of this theory (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/) is a total nutjob, at least judging by that website. As one of many examples I could pick he states (about astrophysicists):

"They rarely take any courses in electrodynamic field theory, and thus they try to explain every new discovery via gravity, magnetism, and fluid dynamics which is all they understand."

Which is interesting since every astro Ph.D. program that I know of has an advanced course in electrodynamics as a basic requirement. Not to mention that "magnetism" is simply one aspect of electrodynamics...

Why is slashdot wasting its precious collective time discussing cranks?

what they have been smoking

[kakapo]

Electric as in electric puha?

a credible source on the electric universe

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually a very intersting theory, first proposed by the Nobel-prize winning father of plasma physics Alfven. Their simulations of galactic formation look a lot like the real thing.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html

Charriots of the Gods

[HermanAB]

Well, Zeus is going to be severely pissed at Nasa for this fender bender...

weapons of mass destruction?

[geoff lane]

We're going to look really stupid if the comet fires back!

Re:weapons of mass destruction?

[Walkingshark]

Yes but will there be a slashdot article about "Comet Creatures Fire Giant Rock into Earth to see if it is really made up of idiots."

...balloon facility.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is where Professor Edgar Bering, a physicist at the University of Houston in Texas, comes in. He heads a team from NASA's National Scientific Balloon Facility to study sprites by flying a high-altitude balloon above major thunderstorms.

..National Scientific 'Balloon' Facility, suuure. :)

Don't Be So Hard on Plasma

[Jaborandy]

You claim that Plasma Cosmology does not predict as well as standard cosmology. This is exactly what Plasma Cosmology promponents say in reverse, and it's meaningless without examples and data. You mentioned three examples.

The evidence that I have seen is that standard cosmology did not accurately predict the microwave background level, but predicted wrong several times and then adjusted to "predict" it after its level was measured. It did not "predict" elemental abundances either, rather someone found a way to work it out so that if you started with something you'd end up where we are now. That doesn't prove the thoeory, it just shows that it can be made to fit. That is only one part of a good theory. Finally, the well-known redshift/distance correlation was measured long before the standard theory was developed, so that again is not something that standard cosmology "predicts."

Both theories have solid ways to explain known observations, and both can point to things that they explain better or more simply than the alternative. I don't think it's fair to discount Plasma Cosmology as a fringe theory based on its merits. It is fringe only because people like you treat it as such instead of honestly trying to evaluate which parts of its theory may be accurate.

(On topic, this comet theory is bunk. I believe in spectroscopy, which proves that comets have lots of ice. Off topic again, I also believe that the big bang is a theory in need of replacement and that the redshift/distance correlation is not just about doppler shift, but that's just me)

Re:Don't Be So Hard on Plasma

[(negative video)]

I don't think it's fair to discount Plasma Cosmology as a fringe theory based on its merits.

I do. They claim that comets carry extreme electric charges. Well, the electrical capacitance between a comet and the sun is at most perhaps a few hundred microfarads. Assume it to be C = 200 uF, and assume that the primordial voltage on the comet is V = 500 million volts. The amount of charge is then Q = C*V = 100,000 coulombs. If the unavoidable leakage current due to the solar wind was a paltry one microampere (utterly optimistic), the charge would be completely exhausted in only 3,171 years.

Moreover, the results of that discharge current would be to produce 250 watts of gamma radiation. It is difficult to understand how that kind of radiation flux could be missed despite exhaustive observations.

In short, trivial application of high school physics blows their hypothesis out of the water. They are idiot crackpots.

Re:Don't Be So Hard on Plasma

[Floody]

(On topic, this comet theory is bunk. I believe in spectroscopy, which proves that comets have lots of ice. Off topic again, I also believe that the big bang is a theory in need of replacement and that the redshift/distance correlation is not just about doppler shift, but that's just me)

I should say it's not about doppler shift, or ... maybe it is, but there's another piece of the puzzle missing/not-understood. Consider the pioneer 10/11 blueshifts (slowing down w/ relation to Sol/us). The latest theory on that is non-cosmology based (more dense Kuiper belt - 10AU closer to the Sun), but should be testable via predicted minor anomalies in Neptune's orbit.

If this theory turns out not to be correct, however, then we have a serious problem. It implies that either our fundamental understanding of the long-range effects of gravity is flawed (which shouldn't be too surprising, given the enigma that the gravitational force has presented in the past) or a similar flawed conception exists regarding the nature of red/blue shifts over vast distances.

Re:Don't Be So Hard on Plasma

[zambuka]

Your work here is good but I notice you conveniently ignored the latter part of that paragraph, the next sentence
"It is fringe only because people like you treat it as such instead of honestly trying to evaluate which parts of its theory may be accurate."
is the important part.

While the whole electric universe and plasma cosmology movement may be full of crackpottery and pseudoscience, Internic's point was that there may be parts of their theories that are spot on and may answer some important questions. But we may never know because scientists, and people like yourself, only ever look at the easy and obviously wrong parts, look at their association with creationism and other silly ideas, and conclude that everything that comes from these theories must therefore be wrong.

By dismissing everything without analysis, or worse only analysing things you can easily prove incorrect you are doing worse for science than these people. Sure some, maybe all of their science may be fundamentally flawed, but by saying all of it is wrong by only looking at the obvious flaws is like looking at Newton's work with alchemy and concluding from that his physics must be pseudoscientific crackpottery as well.

Insteaad we analysied the physics part of Newton's work, found it was good, and accepted it dismissing his alchemy work as just one of those little eccentricities that make great scientists so great.

Re:Don't Be So Hard on Plasma

[angel'o'sphere]

Yeah, your calculation is right, I had the same idea ...
However your post has nothing to do with your quote. And your parent was not talking about the "electrical charge" but about his parent, who was discounting Plasma Cosmology.

Well, I did not RTFA (as the few sentences in the /. article allready gave em he idea that it is BS), so I dont know if the article is also reffering to Plasma Cosmology.

angel'o'sphere

Re:Don't Be So Hard on Plasma

[zambuka]

That should be "parts of their theories have merit" rather than "parts of their theories are spot on".

Stupid slashcode, not having an edit function.

Re:Don't Be So Hard on Plasma

[internic]

What makes Plasma Cosmology a fringe theory is not that I say it's useless, but that almost every expert in the field feels that way. Certainly, a theory can be a fringe theory and later turn out to be useful, but the vast majority of them do not. My purpose was to inform people of how the scientific community views this idea.

Standard cosmology and Plasma Cosmology are certainly not "just as good" as you suggest. The former has proven extremely useful, which is why it is used by scientists across the world to understand phenomena in our universe. It has both predicted phenomena that were later measured and it has allowed us to understand other information we previously could not. Plasma Cosmology, by contrast has not done any of that. It has offered no new predictions that have been verified, and it has only been able to match existing measurements by explanations involving things like scattering processes that have never actually been observed in plasma. In short, Plasma Cosmology has not been useful, which is why it has been relegated to the fringe.

Standard cosmology certainly has made predictions, not only retrodictions. I'll take the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) as an example. You can look at the time line here to see that Gamow and colleagues predicted the existence and approximate temperature of the cosmic microwave background years before it was detected by Penzias and Wilson. I might point out that in addition to the existence and temperature of the radiation, the fact that it is nearly isotropic except for a dipole component (due to the motion of the earth) is also a non-trivial prediction that has turned out to be true. Not to mention subsequent predictions of ansitropy due to the presence of galaxies and other processes. I'm sure that there have been some results that were not correctly predicted due to details that were only realized later; however, in all big bang cosmology has been extraordinarily successful with respect to it's predictions about the CMBR.

In other cases like elemental abundances and cosmological redshift, big bang cosmology allowed us to understand how our measurements arose as a consequence of things we already knew about nuclear physics and general relativity.

I should also point out that the "Electric Universe" is a variant of Plasma Cosmology which doesn't even deserve the label "fringe theory", since it claims many things that are just manifestly false. I think even proponants of Plasma Cosmology wouldn't put any stock in the Electric Universe theories. See other replies to the parent for links debunking of Electric Universe claims.

Re:Don't Be So Hard on Plasma

[(negative video)]

Good point. I got the plasma cosmology crapola confused with the electric comet crapola.

Re:Don't Be So Hard on Plasma

[(negative video)]

By dismissing everything without analysis, or worse only analysing things you can easily prove incorrect you are doing worse for science than these people.

No. Once I find something that is obviously wrong and the result of a total ignorance of reality, I can stop reading. A chain of reasoning is only as strong as its weakest link, and the first ten feet of their chain is made of silly putty and damp tissue.

...is like looking at Newton's work with alchemy and concluding from that his physics must be pseudoscientific crackpottery as well.

The difference is that Newton kept his math/physics and his alchemy separate. He didn't mix the shit and the soup together in one big pot and tell the dinner guests to just pick out the tasty parts.

Big implications for a space elevator

[Portal1]

I read the article and it makes sense to me.

There are a lot of things not explained at this moment and people tend to stick to old ideas or bend them to unlogical explanations instead of look8ing for answers.

IF this concept is TRUE, then the implications are alot.

IF TRUE electricity forms a more indisputable important role in cosmology. how much i don't know, but definatly not neglactable.

IT TRUE then thunderstorms are not like we think they are.

IF TRUE the spaceship collumbia could have been struck by a big electrical charge
Putting the new mission in danger. I wonder if they will react at all if they found out they were wrong with deep impact.

IF TRUE a space elevator become way harder to make as it creates a conductor between outer space and earth. This can have mojor impacts.

IF TRUE and a space elevator could be made it could solve all(alot) of energy problems on earth as we will harnass lightning (an long thought impossible dream). (Can I pattent this or as this is now documented public knowledge at least prevent it from patenting)

IF TRUE and a space elevator could be made it would discharge the athmosphere, making space travel safer (no columbia disaster), but also less thunderstorms. Less formation of ionised gasses and all other implications for a bigger hole on the poles

SO is it good or bad, I don't know
Is it TRUE or NOT I don't know

But I do know that today we will lift a vail of secrecy and that if TRUE the implications are greater then at first sight.

Greets John

Dolts...

[Winkhorst]

No, actually, in the electric model the Sun is a giant anode at the center of a giant vacuum tube. No wire is required. Perhaps you also believe that EM radiation requires the luminiferous ether to operate?

There is nothing whacko about the electric model of the Sun. It is simply a competing model. Keep in mind that there have already been failures of the fusion model, for example, the deficiency of neutrino production.

I have no horse in this race, but it would be nice if those who claim to believe in science would act a bit more scientifically and a bit less like the advocates of superstition and religion.

Re:Dolts...

[jericho4.0]

No, it's whacko. Ya see, physics works. It predicts thing, often with astonishing acuracy. This is how scientists can get up in the morning. Just because some idiot with a web page says different and manages to sell a few books, does not invalidate a massive body of knowledge. Not dogma, knowledge. There is a difference.

The electric model is infantile.

Re:Dolts...

[Rei]

"Electric Universe" is viewed by the scientific community with about as much credence as Creationism, magnetic health rings, the Face on Mars, and Scientology. They have a small handful of real scientists, and that's it. And no, there are no neutrino shortages. A number of crackpot theories grabbed onto the supposed "missing neutrinoes" and inserted a themselves into it; EU was one of them. The neutrinoes were detected, and and scientists were correct in why they weren't detected previously. Quit reading EU nonsense and actually read something remotely scientific.

I recommend that anyone actually considering this peruse the EU sites looking for a single testable equation, quantifiable validated prediction, or any such thing that would evidence it. You won't find it. I suggest taking this discussion, from hereon, to the "Bad Astronomy" bulletin board; they've had to deal with these cranks time and time again.

Re:We finally fight back against comets and astero

[myowntrueself]

"I wish they'd put some numbers (if the crater is larger than "100 feet" then we are wrong. "If the ice detected in the debris is greater than X percent, we are wrong" etc."

Well spotted; scientific theories *must* be disprovable.

It must be possible, in principle, to disprove a theory otherwise its an axiom. And axioms need some justification (like Newtons laws of motion which are not scientific theories but (justifiable) axioms).

HOBBITS!!

[Grendel Drago]

I concur.

--grendel drago

Re:We finally fight back against comets and astero

[Winkhorst]

If you go to the trouble to read what they have predicted, you will learn that they see comets as just asteroids with highly elliptical orbits. Just exactly how much of a splash would YOU expect from a spacecraft hitting an iron-nickel asteroid?

The Orbital Macarena

[DynaSoar]

"the Sun's radial positive electric field" ... ... exists half the time. The other half, it's negative. The solar wind changes in predominant charge two cycles per rotation, or roughly one switch per week.

If the comets were negatively charged, we'd no doubt have noticed them dancing in their orbits. And if the sub had a constant positive charge apart from the solar wind, we'd have noticed the fluctuations in it also.

Correct link to Electric Universe

[Anonymous Coward]

See Electric-Universe.info

The Electric Universe theory is not creationist etc....

Can a moderator do some actual fact checking before moderating garbage as informative? Meta-moderators, please take note?

The EU theory is the very essence of scientific thinking. It questions dogma with extensive use of evidence, proposing an alternative hypothesis, not just tweaking existing non-predictive theories.

Re:Correct link to Electric Universe

[rudy_wayne]

"The Electric Universe theory is not creationist"

True. The people ranting about "The Electric Universe theory" are a different type of crackpot.

Re:Correct link to Electric Universe

[MustardMan]

I never said it was creationist, I said it was being latched onto by creationists. Nutjobs of a feather flock together. Megalighting from space caused the Columbia crash? Yeah, that's extensive use of evidence. Right.

Re:Correct link to Electric Universe

[SteeldrivingJon]

" It questions dogma with extensive use of evidence, proposing an alternative hypothesis, not just tweaking existing non-predictive theories."

It ignores existing evidence to the contrary, stoops to conspiracy theories (shuttle hit by megalightning? Yeah, right) and goes far beyond the limits of falsifiability.

That's 100-proof kookdom.

Mod this UP!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuf said

WTF?

[Evil Pete]

Do you mean "Watts, Teslas and Farads?"

Hrm....

[TacoTaster]

Anybody notice that they dated it with tomorrow's date? Ironic how they brag in the article about how they stated their theory "before it happen(s)/(ed)", and they couldn't even date the fucking article right...

Theory victim of /. malice

[rinkjustice]

Out of all the countless theories circulating the vast expanses of the internet, why choose this one? Why was this comet theory put on the front page of /. to be ripped apart while others are completely ignored or unknown?

Re:Theory victim of /. malice

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe no one else submitted anything else about the comet, poindexter.

My understanding of the debate

[Anonymous Coward]

According the nasa's deep impacts web page the comet is made of "ice, gas, and dust" -- the dirty snowball theory. The comet's effects we observe are due to off-gassing. After impact we should see a lot of ice/water in the debris.

Electric universe theory says comets are rocks like asteroids, and the effects we see are electric/plasma related. Prior to impact we may see electric/plasma effects (though not necessarily). After impact we should see mostly dry rock/dust.

...so we'll see who's right.

The real reason for the mission

[Anonymous Coward]

is to practice deflecting an object heading towards the earth.

at least one prediction (somewhat) confirmed

[Anonymous Coward]

prediction: More energy will be released than expected because of the electrical contributions of the comet. (The discharge could be similar to the "megalightning" bolt that, evidence suggests, struck the shuttle Columbia).

Though I don't buy the megalighting coda.

I'm watching the live jpl feed now. one of the scienctists (who just stopped speaking) is effusively wondering how the little probe made such an impressive impact. he is truly surprised and has said that it will take alot of work to figure out why it did so.

although, it is difficult to say what a non-impressive impact would have looked like...

Post KaBoom News

[Anonymous Coward]

Bwahahahahahahahah

From the so-lame-it-must-be-true dept.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/07/04/deep. impact.sues.reut/

It's a question of degree

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Lakatos argued that scientific theories had a 'hard core' and a 'protective belt'. If your theory's hard core has plenty going for it then it's rational to keep tweaking stuff in the belt to make theory fit the core facts. Eg. if you make one observation in a simple mechanical system that says F!=ma, it's better to hypothesis that maybe there's another force acting that you were unaware of, than that F=ma should be thrown out. It's worth doing this because there is plenty of support for F=ma. But the core only becomes a core after years of research supporting it. Crackpot theories lack such a thing.

Update on 7/4 AFTER the impact

[thatseattleguy]

From the NY Times article:

"We've had a far bigger explosion than we anticipated," said Dr. Donald Yeomans, a mission scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., which controlled the flight. "It was considerably brighter and there was considerably more matter coming off than I had thought."

Entirely consistent with the prevailing "dirty snowball" view; entirely at odds with the Electric Universe wack jobs' "out-on-a-limb" prediction (that the comet is asteroid-like and the impact would be very small).

The remaining question, of course, is what kind of trumped-up post hoc excuse the nut jobs are going to put forth to explain this away. Doctored photographs promulgated by the Vast Astronomical Conspiracy?

Re:Update on 7/4 AFTER the impact

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the 'Electric Universe' folk predicted a "lightning-like discharge", which is entirely consistent with a brighter than expected flash. From the thunderbolts.info site:

More energy will be released than expected because of the electrical contributions of the comet. (The discharge could be similar to the megalightning bolt that, evidence suggests, struck the shuttle Columbia).

Bright flash looks like electrical discharge

[Anonymous Coward]

Have your read the predictions?

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/00curren t.htm

A bright flash is entirely consistent with electrical discharge. It is brighter than expected by mission scientists, who would base their expectation on the conventional model.

I doubt a conventional impact could create a flash like that.

If we take "a far bigger explosion" to mean "more energy liberated", then where did the extra energy come from? One explanation is electrical discharge.

You're not the only one

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to see someone *thinking* about this stuff.

Re: Not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Must it be pointed out, again?

--
Been there, discussed that (at least a thousand times). Next topic.