The Electric Comet theory

[JeanTate]

Happy New Year, Sol88!

Good morning, Sol88.

Thanks for that.

If I may, I'd like to suggest that if your aim is to understand "the mainstream" - whether models of comets or anything else in space science/astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology - an investment of your time and effort on learning 'the basics' would produce great returns.

For example, you seem to rely very heavily on secondary sources - PRs, popsci reports, blogs, etc. Nothing wrong with that per se ... except if you mistake these for primary sources.

Another: JPEG, GIF, etc images are nearly always pale shadows of the actual data. And in many cases the data is not easily converted to an easily understood 'image-like' format. You want to understand "the mainstream"? You'll have to teach yourself how to understand data!

Finally, if your aim - in this thread - is to discuss 'anomalies and inconsistencies', you shot yourself in the foot by calling it "The Electric Comet model" (IMHO).


Again, thanks for that.

Something which 'does not compute' for me, Sol88: if - as you seem to claim - you "understand the principles of the ELECTRIC COMET - ELECTRIC SUN - THE UNIVERSE IS ELECTRIC", why do you not engage in discussion with me, on exactly these things?

On jets, for example, a topic you yourself specifically introduced:




Right, so here's what I see as the biggest disconnect: ELECTRIC, as science, is very well understood ... from Maxwell's equations, to atomic physics, to Quantum Electrodynamics. As is plasma physics. And to understand ELECTRIC you need to at least understand the "(maths)".

If you have a phenomenon which you want to call ELECTRIC, then by definition you must be able to model it (and understand it), at some level, using the science of electromagnetism, plasma physics, etc. And that involves maths.

On the other hand, if you are using ELECTRIC as a shorthand for "may be electromagnetism/plasma physics, or may not; but whatever it is it cannot be modelled, ever", then your ELECTRIC is no different from magic (and cannot be electromagnetism/plasma physics).

Yet you seem quite unconcerned by this apparent, fundamental disconnect.

What am I missing?


A suggestion, if I may: at least in this thread, respond to what others ask of you, about the ech - whether Reality Check or any other ISF member - with something on the ech. If you don't understand the question, ask for clarification. If you don't know the answer - and the question is genuinely about the ech - say so (and then go do the research to find the answer). If it's not about the ech, either say so directly (better) or ignore it (not so good).

And if there appears to be an anomaly or inconsistency in the ech (either internal or with some relevant observational data), I think you're better off acknowledging it.

thanks for engaging with me JeanTate

The problem I have is the LIES mainstream tell us the gullible public on ALL things cosmological dark energy, dark matter, black holes, comets...etc etc

Thanks for this. While it helps me understand your motivations (?), it does not help me understand how you address what I see as the many, fundamental, inconsistencies in the ech. Perhaps we could get back to those at some time?

Comets being "discovered" to be an electrical phenomena will knock over the whole house of cards.

Forgive me, but you seem to have made a giant - and as far as I can tell - unjustified leap of logic here ... but it's also a leap that goes well beyond the scope of this thread (the one you yourself started, on "The Electric Comet theory"), so I won't pursue it further here.

Dusty Plasma is more or less the electric comet and the best place to look for this evidence is to send a probe to look for this evidence...ROSETTA.

Again, you seem to have made another giant leap of logic. This time, however, it's squarely within scope, so ...

Sol88, would you please show - in detail - how you can get from the core assumptions of the electric comet hypothesis (I don't need to remind you of them, do I?) to "Dusty Plasma is more or less the electric comet"?

I mean, unless and until you can do that - in a rigorous, objectively verifiable way - it's pure speculation on your part, isn't it?

This data is still not available, AFAIK to the public but the chatter i'm picking up on is it's something to do with DUSTY PLASMA (the comet is an electrical phenomena)

SO the STORY about dustyicy leftovers from the birth of the solar system just does not wash because there was never in anything in the general public arena about plasma dusty or not, it's all ice and dust.

So the change that's happening as we speak will should change science forever if the scientific method is followed and the preconcived ideas about the birth of the solar system are put aside for the time being.

Again, more giant leaps of logic.

How, Sol88, is the 'death' of "the STORY about dustyicy leftovers from the birth of the solar system" relevant to the ech?

Please, Sol88, can we focus on discussing the ech?

 

[JeanTate]

Happy New Year again, Sol88

Ha ha ha ah thats good RC

I have never said it was not standard physics it's just never been apllied to comets i.e we have never, before the Rosetta mission, probed for dusty plasma. it's allways about the sublimating ice.

(my bold)

Do you mind if I ask, how did you come to this conclusion?

Sure, it's not relevant to the ech, but you seem so certain of it, and yet it would seem to reflect more on your inability to read the relevant primary sources than reality.

Now mainstream are being forced to apply standard plasma physics its like the've made some breakthru discovery

Much like Birkeland who discoverd field aligned currents back when they were blue'n with Chapman.

And I see you, Reality Check are now accepting that dust plasmas play a very important role in cometary displays...comets are an elecrical discharge phenomenon

(my bold again)

This is, of course, a key part of the ech. Yet you seem very reluctant to discuss it. Why is that?

 

[JeanTate]

Hello again, Sol88.

and a slightly better paper on it HERE The meat of the post disappeared but we seem to be hung up on the maths again.

Do we need maths to see the source of the jets? or maybe maths to tell us our eyes a lying on the look of the comet, looks like rock, hard like rock but not rock.

so the assertion of the Electric comet cannot work because the maths doesn't is work is well....a cop out.

Look at the mainstream paradigm of the short movie AMBITION... whoops!

(my bold)

As you yourself have chosen to bring up the topic of jets, I think this might be a good time to remind you - and readers in general - that I had asked you about jets some time ago. And that you have yet to address my questions. So I'll repeat them here (source):

Let me ask you about jets, electrical discharge phenomena, and the ECH, OK?

1) How do you get from:
* there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun AND
* comets are homogeneous 'rock'
to:
* the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena?

Would you please walk me through the logical steps from premises to conclusion?

2) What primary source, or sources, can you cite, re "in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena"?

3) Per the ECH, what are the two (or more) 'ends' of the electrical discharge(s) that are comet jets? Or, what acts as electrodes?

I think that will do for now; I look forward to continuing to discuss comet jets in the ECH.

 

[JeanTate]

Still catching up, Sol88 ...

So. where is the evidence for the EDM, all those discharges that are taking place at and around the comet? Where are the signatures in the fields instruments?

Just one picture from OSIRIS of the source of the jets and it should be plainly visible!

Sol88, from having read a great many of your posts, in this thread, I have come to the conclusion that you understood perfectly well what tusenfem was asking, and so I'm a bit disappointed that you seem to have chosen to (deliberately?) avoid answering.

Sol88, why is it apparently so hard for you to stay focused on discussing the ech? Why do you - apparently - so strenuously avoid answering good, direct questions about the ech?

 

[JeanTate]

Still catching up, Sol88 ...

Yup sure, and exactly what is the electrical explanation of H/D ratios Sol88, please do tell.

In the intense electrical discharge during the comets birth form a planetary surface and/or during increasing electrical stress on it's inbound leg, nucleosynthesis could take place.

<stuff not relevant to the ech snipped>

What are you primary sources for this, Sol88?

If "nucleosynthesis could take place", what other nuclear reactions could also take place?

It seems I may have misunderstood the ech, so could you please help me out? I mean, I thought that - in the ech - the H (and so D) we observe in comets' tails (etc) comes primarily (entirely?) from the solar wind ... in particular, the ech holds that comets are homogeneous rock, and so have essentially zero hydrogen.

So, please clarify for me, Sol88: in the ech, how much H (and D) is there in the homogeneous rock that is the comet body?

In your reply, please cite primary sources, so I can go check your answer for myself.

 

[ben m]

Wrong dude

Peratt confirmed the late 1970s / early 1980s galaxy simulations in this 1995 paper ... Authors:Snell, Charles M.; Peratt, Anthony L.

Why must I be more of an expert on EU than the guy defending EU? Why, why, why?

a) The paper you cite does not report any new simulations or refinements. Its only contribution is to overlay some newish data on the older simulations. How bad are these simulations? They were performed at best on a Cray X-MP running at 0.8 gigaflops---less than the computing power of a first-generation iPhone.

b) Do you realize how these results are being "used"? The Cray was able to run simulations and display pictures on a screen, but it couldn't actually store video-like data. In 1995, Peratt is reusing photographs of a computer screen from the mid-80s.

c) It's 2015. You just cited a 20-year-old paper as evidence that Peratt is still working on this? 20 years.

I meant what I said: the "plasma physics explains galaxy rotation" is a dead idea. It's an idea that was simulated once 30 years ago and mentioned again 20 years ago and then abandoned, even by its author, because it's complete nonsense. Even by EU/PC standards.

 

[JeanTate]

Happy New Year Ziggurat (and tusenfem, and Haig).

[*]When a plasma is only partly ionized, the electromagnetic forces act on the non-ionized components only indirectly through the viscosity between the ionized and non-ionized constituents. And how strong is this viscosity, or basically, what is the collision frequency of this space plasma?

Not strong enough to drag stars along with it, that's for sure. So it can't have anything to do with galactic rotation curves, which is what the EU crowd needs.

While I am very grateful to Haig for providing so many links to what he considers to be the primary sources for the ech, I'm also rather dismayed at what comes across to me as his self-assurance and pride (if that's the right word).

I mean, he's stated - more than once - that he does not understand the physics content (and the mathematics underlying it) of most of what's in his links, and so quickly admits that he cannot discuss any of it in any meaningful way. However, I'd've thought he would have taken at least the minimal effort needed to check out the logic, and the relevant facts. Yet he seems to have not done that, apparently setting himself up for being shown to be wilfully ignorant.

In this case, he seems ignorant of the fact that spiral galaxy rotations curves have been derived using the light from neutrals (e.g. HI), ionized species (e.g. [OIII]), and from stars. And the curves are the same. Do you understand why ignorance of these facts is so embarrassing to you, Haig?

 

[Haig]

Response to Sol88 (#3311)

The idea that sunspots were holes in the solar surface that revealed a cooler interior (possibly even inhabited!) was a popular idea in the 1800s. But it was an idea that fell apart with better instruments, and better models.

[ unnecessary rant and repetition deleted ]

So where's the equivalent sunspot simulation from the Electric Sun model?

Can you Tom debate Miles Mathis on these ? or can anyone else ?

Don't go for the man (I doubt you can resist) what are the arguments against his math and logic in these three papers.

Miles Mathis isn't in the EU / PC crowd and he certainly isn't in the mainstream, he's kinda unique but in discussions of an Electric Sun and with his focus on "charge" as one of the overlooked factors of an electrical nature should / must be included IMHO

The Cause of the Solar Cycle PDF

It has been known for a long time that the main Solar cycle is about 11 years, but that is just an average. It goes from a minimum of about 9 years up to about 14 years. Although some theories have been presented, the cause of all three numbers is unknown. I will show you the correct answer here.

The reason I so quickly hit on the right answer is that I knew where to look. In my other long paper on Sun cycles (ice ages), I have already shown that Jupiter is the cause of the secondary variance. In this
case we will see that Jupiter is the cause of the primary variance. Upon reading the NASA data, Jupiter is the first place I looked. The NASA writers even give us a hidden clue, though it is doubtful anyone but me tripped over it.

The fact that the alignment of Jupiter/Uranus is determining this maximum in 2012 is what has made it strange and small. In 2012, we finally hit our first peak of the cycle, and that is when Uranus is still near the line, Saturn is near the line, and Neptune is moving toward it again. Although none are strictly aligned with Jupiter, this near alignment of all four planets is about the best we are going to get in this weak cycle.

Saturn is now (late 2014) moving toward 90, so we are moving toward a minimum. But we are not moving very positively toward it even this late in the cycle, since Neptune is going to opposition. This will stretch the peak of cycle 24, pushing it well into 2015. The slope of the graph won't really start to drop strongly until after Neptune moves off the line. This will cause a pretty precipitous drop from 2015 to 2018. In 2018, Saturn will be at about 45, Neptune will at about 90, and Uranus will be at 90. So you can see easily the cause of the minimum there.

Magnetic Reconnection and Coronal Temperatures PDF

At any rate, I have long had a simple mechanical theory for charge effects: it has been part of my unified field for years. But until now I have not connected it to the corona. Even when I wrote a paper on the Sun a couple of years ago, I had nothing much to say about the creation of the coronal energy. But now that I have used the charge field to explain the brightness of planets, moons, and comets—via magnetic interaction—I now have a mechanism for the corona. Some of my readers understood me
immediately, and made the connection before I even got here. They wrote and asked me if the brightness of Enceldaus was linked to the heat of the corona. Rather than just say “yes,” I decided to write this paper for all my readers, making the connection explicit.

In those previous papers on comets and moons, I showed how the spins on the photons could cause the unexplained brightness. We only require photons meeting anti-photons, and charge recycling—along with an ambient field—was able to explain both. In short, all spherical bodies from electrons to
galaxies recycle charge. The spin of the sphere in an ambient field naturally creates field potentials which draw photons in at the poles and emit them most heavily at the equator. This emitted charge then rejoins the ambient field at a boundary, and this rejoining can cause spin cancellations. In the right circumstances, these spin cancellations can cause big effects, and that is what we are seeing with increased brightness. It is also what we are seeing with the corona

The Heliospheric Current Sheet PDF

Ethan Siegel and Xiaoying Xu of the University of Arizona analyzed the distribution of dark matter in our Solar System, and found that the mass of dark matter is 300 times more than that of the galactic halo average, and the density is 16,000 times higher than that of the background dark matter.

You know what, they are right, except for one thing. That isn't dark matter they are calculating, it is charge. There is always going to be more charge in the vicinity of baryonic matter, as we have known for 200 years. Benjamin Franklin put the charge signs on matter, and we still do. We have always defined charge as a relationship of matter, so of course it is going to exist with more density around matter. I have shown why this is: matter recycles charge. Spinning protons, neutrons, and electrons recycle charge photons, and the spins and photons are real. Everything involved has mass, spin, and radius. Nothing is virtual. Nothing comes out of the vacuum or returns into it.

But they pretend not to be able to figure this out. In the new articles, they tell us that there seems to be a mysterious link between dark matter and baryonic matter, since there is more dark matter in the vicinity of baryonic matter. They ask, “How do dark matter and baryonic matter interact?”

According to consensus among cosmologists, dark matter is believed to be composed primarily of a new, not yet characterized, type of subatomic particle. The search for this particle, by a variety of means, is one of the major efforts in particle physics today.

You have to be kidding me. How about the subatomic particle we call the photon? Like dark matter, it doesn't react with E/M fields, and it creates a field that is “transparent.” It is so transparent, we have forgotten all about it, apparently. It has become transparent to our physics.

All this was caused by refusing to assign charge to a real field. Currently, it is mediated by a messenger photon, which is virtual. Imaginary. Therefore, charge currently has no real presence in the field. Which is why, when we come across new evidence indicating the presence of a powerful field of
particles, we forget about charge. “Charge is nothing, just imaginary field potentials, so we need a new field to explain new data!” Perverse.

To see mainstream physicists continue to assign all new things to dark matter is perverse, considering that they already have a field that contains it and explains it, without mystery. Why would they do that? Well, in addition to the ascendance and takeover of science fiction, we have the longstanding fact that physicists do not want to rewrite their field equations again. They had enough trouble adding Relativity to them, and they don't want to add charge, too. It would require too much work (they think). They think they have proof of the gravity-only field (since their equations work pretty well),
and this allows them to keep the field they inherited from Laplace centuries ago. Besides, they just spent decades belittling all the “cranks” who wanted to add charge or E/M to the field. The Velikovsky affair is still warm in some places, and to admit Velikovsky was even partially right about anything is
too painful for them. So it is easier to hide and misdirect than to look directly at the evidence in front of them.

However, I have done the work for them, and it turns out they can keep a lot of their old prize equations. The revolution will turn out to be a lot less messy than they have thought. It is far simpler than anyone imagined, because their old fields already contained charge. They just didn't know it. The charge field is already inside Newton's gravity field, in the constant G. And since General Relativity was just the addition of transforms to Newton, Einstein's equations already contain charge as well. And charge is already inside the Lagrangian, too, as I have shown.

That's right. The unified field was hiding in plain sight, too. It has been hiding inside G for centuries. Because it was already in the Newtonian field equations, we don't have to rewrite anything. We just have to re-expand and re-interpret what we already had.

 

[Haig]

Why must I be more of an expert on EU than the guy defending EU? Why, why, why?

a) The paper you cite does not report any new simulations or refinements. Its only contribution is to overlay some newish data on the older simulations. How bad are these simulations? They were performed at best on a Cray X-MP running at 0.8 gigaflops---less than the computing power of a first-generation iPhone.

b) Do you realize how these results are being "used"? The Cray was able to run simulations and display pictures on a screen, but it couldn't actually store video-like data. In 1995, Peratt is reusing photographs of a computer screen from the mid-80s.

c) It's 2015. You just cited a 20-year-old paper as evidence that Peratt is still working on this? 20 years.

I meant what I said: the "plasma physics explains galaxy rotation" is a dead idea. It's an idea that was simulated once 30 years ago and mentioned again 20 years ago and then abandoned, even by its author, because it's complete nonsense. Even by EU/PC standards.

Whoa ben m, You claimed this ...

This one.

Glad to hear it. That's a nice classic piece of why astronomers reject plasma cosmology. Peratt's crappy simulations is of nearly-massless "stars" that get yanked around a "galaxy" in lockstep by ultra-strong magnetic fields.

This is so obviously disproven by the data that I thought that even the plasma cosmologists had given up on it. Peratt dropped the whole line of inquiry like a hot potato, didn't he? That's how bad and EU-disproving these results are, dude.

So you're wrong to say "Peratt dropped the whole line of inquiry like a hot potato, didn't he?"

Started in late 1970s / early 1980s and still putting out a paper on it in 1995 !!!

15 years + isn't an insignificant period. Can't you admit to being wrong ?

Galaxy formation

In the early 1980s Anthony L. Peratt, a student of Alfvén's, used supercomputer facilities at Maxwell Laboratories and later at Los Alamos National Laboratory to simulate Alfvén and Fälthammar's concept of galaxies being formed by primordial clouds of plasma spinning in a magnetic filament.

 

[rwguinn]

Question for Haig, Sol88, et al.
How do you run a computer simulation/analysis without mathematics? Don't you need, like, equations and stuff?
Unless you have Asimov's MULTIVAC and say "Here's all the data. What's the answer?"

 

[Haig]

sorry but who cares about dark matter/energy in an electric comet thread.
i just pointed out that that paper had nothing of substance, and basically should have been rejected on that ground, i would not have let it pass. it is all conjecture what they write.
maybe some of dm/de is also conjecture, but that does not make this eu paper acceptable.
as i know nothing about dm/de i am not going to discuss that with you.
as i am an expert on plasma physics (in alfven's second category) i can and will point out plasma humbug to you.
however as you have zero knowledge of even basic physics it is pointless to discuss with you because as a full blown creationist you will keep on throwing in unrelated stuff into the discussion as not to need answer actual questions. why on earth are we discussing dm/de in an electric comet thread? should we not discuss the non-existence of edm on comets, and why the ec gang will not work on actual data to show that edm does exist? as ibtol the other troll sol, look at comet halley, which was much much more active, and thus must be a paradise for edm. but that will not happen, will it, because you ans sol will come up with papers or press releases in which the words "surprise" or "unexplained" appear and then think you have proved something because of it, instead of actually doing something.
as i said before, it is pathetic.

Gee tusenfem, have I got to keep pointing it out to you ?

Electric Comets require an Electric Sun require an Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology

It's a package deal ! Sure the thread is about Electric Comets but the other elements in the "trinity" can be discussed a bit. IMHO

btw How dare you call me "a full blown creationist" where exactly do you get THAT ad hom from ? (have you been on the sauce ?)

As a card carrying atheist I feel you should justify that insult or failing that make a humble apology.

 

[jmckaskle]

Haig, you believe in the EC hypothesis a priori and use your belief as justification for your beliefs. You see everything as confirmation of your beliefs without consideration of the evidence. And you have an admitted lack of both objectivity and knowledge to assess the evidence. This is creationism in a nut shell.

 

[Haig]

Question for Haig, Sol88, et al.
How do you run a computer simulation/analysis without mathematics? Don't you need, like, equations and stuff?
Unless you have Asimov's MULTIVAC and say "Here's all the data. What's the answer?"

Maths ? We don't need no stinking math!

THE HOLE at the center of the Sun

Conclusion: Since the celestial field equations have contained charge from the beginning (since Newton, anyway), we are free to use charge to explain phenomena. And since the galactic core must be supplying the Solar System with large amounts of charge, we are free to use that fact to explain phenomena. Once we admit that the Solar System is not a closed system, and not a gravity-only system, most of the old problems evaporate. We then have a mechanism to solve centuries' worth of intractable questions. This is just one of them.

Misconception: If you’re not doing math, you’re not doing real science.

Answer:
Science does not begin with mathematics, but with direct observation, experiment, and special insights into cause-and-effect relationships.

Many popular mathematical constructs today were devised early in the 20th century to help explain aspects of gravity-centric theory. Now, the picture has changed, and gravity is no longer sovereign on the macrocosmic scale. The cosmic “container” of objects in space is not an empty vacuum. Nor is it the neutral plasma medium that theorists once assumed based on limited observations.

We now see massive flows of charged particles, ranging from immeasurably subtle to explosively energetic — a universe more hugely complex than most theorists of the 20th century ever imagined. Gravitational models, based on a single Newtonian equation, can no longer describe things now displayed in the heavens across the full electromagnetic spectrum.

 

[jmckaskle]

Mathematics is the language of science, at least the physical sciences. Direct observation tells you very little. Direct astronomical observations are disconnected from cause and proffer no information as to what events will proceed from it. Math places observations, both direct and indirect, into context. You can observe a super nova but without mathematics, you will have nothing to say about it. Math is contextualized by direct and indirect observations. If your math does not describe what you see, then your math is wrong. One without the other is useless. EC is doubly useless by purposefully not relying on both mathematics and observation, instead relying on revelation of prophets like Thornhill and Juergens.

ETA: Biology and Evolution are also math intensive. I wouldn't be surprised that the reason the soft sciences are often so controversial is their often lack of a rigorous mathematical language.

 

[Haig]

Haig, you believe in the EC hypothesis a priori and use your belief as justification for your beliefs. You see everything as confirmation of your beliefs without consideration of the evidence. And you have an admitted lack of both objectivity and knowledge to assess the evidence. This is creationism in a nut shell.

No, your wrong.

Your putting me in a box of your own making ... I don't have any "faith" or "belief" in the Electric Comet hypothesis ...

... However, it does make sense of the facts as I understand them. And as more and more EVIDENCE is uncovered the more secure that judgement becomes ... almost in inverse proportion to the "beliefs" of the Dirty Snowball comet adherents who have become more and more undermined with surprise after surprise with each new comet.

Notwithstanding the morphing into an ad hoc magnetic facsimile of the original Electric Comet hypothesis. Can't you see that?

Getting back to the Electric Comet 67P ...

Rosetta Mission Update | Comet 67P -- Electrical Sculpting of Surface Dust

Published on 30 Dec 2014
For several months now, the Rosetta Mission has followed the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko around the sun. And as we’ve expected, direct observation continues to add one mystery to another. How are we to understand the weird configurations of dust on the comet’s surface?

Watch Update #1: The Rocky Comet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-a_jlM50PU
Watch Update #2: Comets May Not Be What We Thought https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UliVkgc5s4
Watch Update #3: Oops! No Water on Comet 67P? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqxF5u_iaRg
Watch Update #4: Rubble on 67P Defies Current Comet Theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMkjPeeVYU
Watch Update #5: Jets of Comet 67P -- Failed "Explanations" Continue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceZqIXkX3u0

 

[jmckaskle]

You do have faith in it. You take the electric sun as a given. That means you take it on faith. Nor do you understand the facts as you have demonstrated for how many years now? You refuse to educate yourself even in the basics math and the science.

Quote: "The Electric Sun is a given for the EU / PC folk but they are still trying to resolve outstanding issues with the Juergens Scott Thornhill (JST) electric sun model."

That is faith if you take the Electric Sun as a given. You are basically a creationist.

 

[Haig]

Mathematics is the language of science, at least the physical sciences. Direct observation tells you very little. Direct astronomical observations are disconnected from cause and proffer no information as to what events will proceed from it. Math places observations, both direct and indirect, into context. You can observe a super nova but without mathematics, you will have nothing to say about it. Math is contextualized by direct and indirect observations. If your math does not describe what you see, then your math is wrong. One without the other is useless. EC is doubly useless by purposefully not relying on both mathematics and observation, instead relying on revelation of prophets like Thornhill and Juergens.

ETA: Biology and Evolution are also math intensive. I wouldn't be surprised that the reason the soft sciences are often so controversial is their often lack of a rigorous mathematical language.

That jmckaskle, is why modern cosmology is in the mess it is and why the Creationists are loving it !

Why Is Modern Cosmology So Weird?

Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?


common misconception 3 — where’s the math?

Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ~Nikola Tesla If scientific reasoning were limited to the logical processes of arithmetic, we should not get very far in our understanding of the physical world. ~Vannevar Bush Mathematics is well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose. ~Albert Einstein

 

[jmckaskle]

We are all quite aware that if you forgo mathematics and observation for faith and fantasy, then we'd all be blissful in our ignorance. EC is opium for the kind of person that would prefer that his or her imaginative fantasies were real. That is why you and Sol88 are creationists. Math is hard.

 

[jmckaskle]

It's interesting that you would quote people who I agree with concerning mathematics and observation as if I don't agree with them and as if you do. They would all agree that science without mathematics is mysticism and would reject your nonsense out of hand. If Nikola Tesla didn't understand electromagnetism, he would have gotten a bit of a shock.

 

[tusenfem]

Gee tusenfem, have I got to keep pointing it out to you ?

Electric Comets require an Electric Sun require an Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology

It's a package deal ! Sure the thread is about Electric Comets but the other elements in the "trinity" can be discussed a bit. IMHO

btw How dare you call me "a full blown creationist" where exactly do you get THAT ad hom from ? (have you been on the sauce ?)

As a card carrying atheist I feel you should justify that insult or failing that make a humble apology.

and good juice it was too!

i call you creationist because of your discussion techniques. as you know willy nilly ofvphysics you just throw in stuff that is totally unrelated just in order to not answer any questions. i owe you an apology? i think not, no matter what card you carry.

so in order to show that a comet is electric, which you can actually do (or rather have done, maybe by this mathis guy, whoever that may be) by looking at the available data, you choose to discuss dark matter or energy, sure makes sense to me.

so it is clear you do not follow the scientific method, making a hypothesis "comets have edm" and then look at the data whether there is something to it. no you make a hypothesis and then start arguing against something else, thinking that if you succeed in casting doubt on that something else you hypothesis will be vindicated. naturally that stance is ridiculous.

there is a fully developed science called plasma physics, based on pioneers like birkeland and alfven, which can actually find out if your hypothesis is correct or not. but you cannot be helt completely responsible, you don't know plasma physics, which is okay because it is pretty darn difficult.

but your gods in thunderdolts, who claim to be electric engineers and plasma scientist should be able to help you, do they? you are (for some unknown reason) defending their fortress and they give you zilch, some nice thunderfriend you have there.