And there are testable implications about this EDM fantasy: Haig is stating that the more times that a comet has a close approach to the Sun, the darker it will be.
I am correct, Sol88: no rocks or rock boulders or rock rubble piles unless someone is deluded enough to think that comets are made of rock. The bloggers on the Rosetta web site know basic facts about comets and do so will not be deluded that comets are rocks. Thus to anyone who can understand science and English:
(my emphasis added)
!Now Mathis and Pi ...
Steve David Urich blog on The Pi=4 Theory is a case in point ... language "the crown jewel of crackpottery. This theory alone has elevated Mathis from an obscure, struggling artist and ballet dancer, to undisputed King of the Crackpots." ; "other assorted silliness and hogwash." : "the most outlandish and absurd nonsense that Mathis, or any other crank, has ever produced; this is crackpottery on steroids." : "this idiotic and perposterous theory:" just a sample
Some of Mathis papers that sparked this abuse ...
Proof from NASA that π is 4
and
Clarification of the equation a = v2/r
I don't see a problem with Mathis's logic, reasoning or math and he is right to point to the "holes" in mainstream dogma.
He is not alone ...
The problem of "Pi" and the problem of "Prime Numbers"
Let us add some context to your set of cherry picked quotes, Haig:
The links at the bottom are the first 2 to other blogs basically saying the same about the pi =4 delsusion, then a couple of reviews of his book, some Thunderbolts forum posts that may blindly support Mathis, etc.
What "bright stuff or more correctly "stuff shining thru" at the jet source", Sol88?
Which paper or scientist are you quoting for "stuff shining thru"?
Please cite the scientific literature, not any Thunderbolts fantasies.
It is a lie to state that any of the ECH delusion has been confirmed by pictures of Tempel 1. None of the pictures are of rock. None of the pictures show electrical discharges. None of the pictures show electrical discharge machining.
Interesting bunch of ignorance and delusions here from a B Talbott.
* comet science has an explanation for the color of comet surfaces which is not delusions about ECM!
* surface ice has only been seen on one comet and so was not expected on 67P.
* multiple craters are expected on comets - given the billions of years and billions of comets and meteoroids, collisions are inevitable. Even the smaller moons have craters.
* the deluded cherry picking of a blob created in an electric arc.
* the delusion that inner system dust that was found in the Stardust mission means that comets formed there - "stardust" was also found!
* the almost lie of quoting scientists stating stuff was a surprise as if that was bad. That is how science progresses - through finding unexpected stuff that is unexpected.
* The idea that scientists will "arrive at the Electric Universe through the back door" is truly ignorant. Scientists know more about electromagnetism than the Thunderbolts people and include it in their scientific models where appropriate.
I am correct, Sol88: no rocks or rock boulders or rock rubble piles unless someone is deluded enough to think that comets are made of rock. The bloggers on the Rosetta web site know basic facts about comets and do so will not be deluded that comets are rocks. Thus to anyone who can understand science and English:
Boulder close-up is a close-up of a boulder of ice and dust.
An image with no source of "rubble piles" is an image of ice and dust rubble piles.
ETA: The author of that blog entry looks like Emily Baldwin
(my emphasis added)
She is not a mythologist who makes up fairy stories about comets (Talbott) or a physicist who has fallen for Velikovsky's delusion and has a fantasy about electrical discharges creating the Grand Canyon (Thornhill) or an electrical engineer who is comfortable working with people who hold such fantasies as real (Scott).
There is no mystery to anyone who bothers to learn about the scientific model of comets rather then obsessing on popular science labels, Sol88: Comets are made of ices and dust. Basic physics will tell you that ice and dust in space will form shapes that look like rocks in images (it has to do with something called gravity!).
Plenty unexpected (and a few things unexpected): Rosetta images of Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko 1: Near-surface icy terrain similar to comet Tempel-1 Max Wallis1 and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe.
You do not have to repeat The Thunderbolts delusion that clays, carbonates, sulphides and silicates found in dust particles is ROCK, Sol88. We already know that thinking that dust particles are ROCKS is a delusion. Though a source on Thunderbolts would be good so that we can be sure that this is their delusion based on their ignorance between the difference between DUST PARTICLES and ROCK.
Delusional is the correct word for the 60-year old delusion that planets whizz around to fit the cherry picked myths in volition of the laws of physics: myths: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos (mostly about their electric comet delusion but there is other stuff).
We have to thank Haig for making it clear that the basis of the electric comet idea is the Velikovsky's delusion from the 1950's
Why can't it happen on a comet then, tusenfem?
are they special rocky airless bodies?
Everything needed is there.
Not hardly.
davesmith_au said:
In my first post mentioning Miles Mathis, I noted egregious errors very near the beginning of the paper Mathis cites as his proof near the beginning of the paper you cited. Those errors invalidated all of the Mathis papers you cited, and you have had no answer to that fact.If you want to chat about his papers that I posted (relevant to this thread, scroll back ) ... that's fine. Otherwise it's just wishful Pi in the sky to be ignored
That "foundation" appears to be run by one of Miles Mathis's pseudonyms. The appeal quoted above is followed by instructions on how to give Mathis money, complete with link.Miles Mathis said:
