Interpretation of empirical evidence

empirical evidence interpretation cometsEmpirical evidence is seen as the ultimate decider of scientific experiments, data/results and especially theory. You can not argue with empirical evidence.

One of the main mainstream science argument against the Electric Universe theory is that there is little empirical experimental evidence to back it up.

But stats/data/results can be interpreted many ways. It just depends on which eyes or theories you use to view those same results.

The recent Rosetta Mission to comet 67P is a perfect example. Following on from the comet Hartley 2 mission and Asteroid Eors it looks like comets are rocky and very similar to asteroids. The EU theory has predicted that comets are just active asteroids.

The Philae lander tried to land but bounces a couple of times. Its ice screws could not screw into the surface as the surface was made up of a soft layer with a very hard layer directly below that.

You would think that the interpretation of empirical results could only conclude one result.

Empirical evidence interpretation - comet 67P surface is hard ice

The theories of mainstream science according to planetary formation theory, Big Bang theory, comet theory and the theory of Gravity, combined with being involved in the whole ESA/Rosetta employment have now stated that comet 67P is still either a dirty snowball or and ice mountain or even the new moniker of a snowy dirtball. That Philae lander itself and the drill on it hit a layer of dust then a layer of very hard water ice. Because comets are water and not rock.

empirical evidence how you interpret it

"It's within a very broad spectrum of ice models. It was harder than expected at that location, but it's still within bounds," said Prof Mark McCaughrean, senior science adviser to Esa, told BBC News.
"People will be playing with [mathematical] models of pure water-ice mixed with certain amount of dust."
He explained: "You can't rule out rock, but if you look at the global story, we know the overall density of the comet is 0.4g/cubic cm. There's no way the thing's made of rock.
Comet landing: Organic molecules detected by Philae

Prof Mark McCaughrean, senior science adviser to ESA (European Space Agency who run the Rosetta Mission), has interpreted the empirical evidence. Case closed.

Empirical evidence - comet 67P surface is similar to sandstone (sandstone is not ice)

empirical evidence comet 67p electric universe theoryPaul Rincon, the science editor of the BBC has interpreted or reported the same empirical evidence but has mentioned that the data may also be interpreted slightly differently. Although he has kept up with the theory that comets are ice mountains he has mentioned that the surface may be a type of stone or rock, similar to a sandstone.

Preliminary results from the Mupus instrument, which deployed a hammer to the comet after Philae's landing, suggest there is a layer of dust 10-20cm thick on the surface with very hard water-ice underneath.
The ice would be frozen solid at temperatures encountered in the outer Solar System - Mupus data suggest this layer has a tensile strength similar to sandstone.
Preliminary results from the Mupus instrument, which deployed a hammer to the comet after Philae's landing, suggest there is a layer of dust 10-20cm thick on the surface with very hard water-ice underneath.
The ice would be frozen solid at temperatures encountered in the outer Solar System - Mupus data suggest this layer has a tensile strength similar to sandstone.
Comet landing: Organic molecules detected by Philae

Active asteroid 67P (comet 67P) in an Electric Universe

empirical evidence electric universe theoryAs shown by the links above and by observational empirical evidence, comet 67P is rocky. The Electric Universe theory has predicted this for many a year because comets are just active asteroids.

But why are comets and comet 67P still dirty snowballs or their surface rock hard ice and not the rocky stuff that they look to be?

Tthe comets density, measured by its gravitational influence on the Rosetta spacecraft, will give an entirely misleading idea of the comets composition. The reason is simple although inexcusable in the 21st century. Its the confusion by physicists of mass with the quantity of matter. For more than a century scientists should have known according to E=mc2, that the mass of sub atomic particles is an energetic variable dependent on the local electrical environment.
That is why the so called universal constant of gravitation is so maddening inconstant.
The comets environment is unearthly. As a result I confidently predict that the chemical and physical makeup of will confound researchers. The nucleas looks like solid rock becuase it is solid rock.
Wallace Thornhill - Rosetta Could Change Science Forever