A reminder - it is not an ad hom to call someone obsessive or delusional if they show signs of being obsessed or deluded.
Last edited:
The Electric Comet theory
- Thread starter Sol88
- Start date
- Status
A reminder - it is not an ad hom to call someone obsessive or delusional if they show signs of being obsessed or deluded.
Last edited:
nvidiot
Botanical Jedi
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,121
How? How is that a description of the posts RC is making? I don't always agree with the way he words it, but I imagine his patience is far more worn than mine and so calling the Electric Comet "theory" (pfffft!) "totally stupid" is probably as civil as you can expect.
Haig, you, me, heck a lot of the people in this thread are laymen. We have an interest in the world around and outside of us and seek explainations. The problem is that you seem to have for whatever reason latched onto one that is nonsense. EU/PC is not only unevidenced, but it's a total failure at every single hurdle it faces. It doesn't explain any observations quantifiably. It doesn't provide predictions of behaviour and then observe them to see if they're correct or not. It doesn't represent the standard solar and solar system models correctly either.
Thunderbolts LIES. They have been shown to do this so many times and in so many different ways for almost every single thing they state on that kludge of a site. It doesn't predict anything, it merely reacts.
You're going to have to start thinking seriously about the actual results that have been received from our observations, and when they don't agree with the nonsense that is EU/PC, you don't throw out the results, you throw out the hypothesis and look for an explaination that actually fits the data. You can't just say: "Well this data must be skewed in favour of the status quo, obviously the scientists involved are mistaken and didn't look for x feature or y process." Science makes mistakes, but it self corrects! The EU/PC hypothesis has been debunked at every prediction it makes. Every one.
It dishonors the good names of good scientists working over the last century or more to understand the nature of the universe. Birkeland was wrong, but if he had the observations and data we have today I wouldnt hesitate to say that he would come to the same conclusions that the modern science has. EU/PC raises up some scientists working outside their field of specialisation to semi-divinity, with individuals like Alfven who made some interesting suggestions about the nature of the universe which turned out to be utterly wrong. But EU/PC backers seem to think that a plasma physicist who did make a great contribution to his field must have somehow ex-nihilo hit on the true nature of the universe. Guess what? He was wrong about cosmology, mostly because he didn't know enough about it and did not have the tools to use that we do today
You know why we know that? Because he made specific predictions of what should be observed if he was correct and those observations disproved them. Why on earth and FSM above would you continue to think that thunderbolts is an accurate description of the asteroids, comets and planets when they're constantly shown to be not just wrong but observationally disproven.
Nw I'm a cynic as well as a skeptic so I can be a blunt instrument on these forums sometimes, but when someone who actually knows WTF they're taking about in a given subject comes in here I read and look for the evidence and references that they bring to the table. Then when I look what the EU/PC bring to the table and compare. And the EU /PC hypothesis isn't just wrong on the maths, it isn't just wrong on the observations and interepretations, and it isn't just wrong on the qualitative and quantitative data predicted and observed. It's wrong on all those things, and demonstrably shown to be that.
Look at the evidence and then make a prediction about what you should see in "x" case if EU/PC is correct. Then post those predictions and we shall look for what they suggest. If the observations are not significantly different from the ones predicted by standard theories then they're of little utility. If you find something that is significantly different, can be quantified and replicated, and is also consistent with an EU/PC model then you maybhave something. But frankly, I don't think that will be the case, because there is no EU/PC model, just bloggers and wannabe physicists who didn't make the math grades necessary for real physics pontificating to a small crowd of contrarians.
Sorry again to the other posters and to Haig himself for the ramble. I'm finding my mind wandering a lot lately and when it does this stuff just flows out.
Haig, you, me, heck a lot of the people in this thread are laymen. We have an interest in the world around and outside of us and seek explainations. The problem is that you seem to have for whatever reason latched onto one that is nonsense. EU/PC is not only unevidenced, but it's a total failure at every single hurdle it faces. It doesn't explain any observations quantifiably. It doesn't provide predictions of behaviour and then observe them to see if they're correct or not. It doesn't represent the standard solar and solar system models correctly either.
Thunderbolts LIES. They have been shown to do this so many times and in so many different ways for almost every single thing they state on that kludge of a site. It doesn't predict anything, it merely reacts.
You're going to have to start thinking seriously about the actual results that have been received from our observations, and when they don't agree with the nonsense that is EU/PC, you don't throw out the results, you throw out the hypothesis and look for an explaination that actually fits the data. You can't just say: "Well this data must be skewed in favour of the status quo, obviously the scientists involved are mistaken and didn't look for x feature or y process." Science makes mistakes, but it self corrects! The EU/PC hypothesis has been debunked at every prediction it makes. Every one.
It dishonors the good names of good scientists working over the last century or more to understand the nature of the universe. Birkeland was wrong, but if he had the observations and data we have today I wouldnt hesitate to say that he would come to the same conclusions that the modern science has. EU/PC raises up some scientists working outside their field of specialisation to semi-divinity, with individuals like Alfven who made some interesting suggestions about the nature of the universe which turned out to be utterly wrong. But EU/PC backers seem to think that a plasma physicist who did make a great contribution to his field must have somehow ex-nihilo hit on the true nature of the universe. Guess what? He was wrong about cosmology, mostly because he didn't know enough about it and did not have the tools to use that we do today
You know why we know that? Because he made specific predictions of what should be observed if he was correct and those observations disproved them. Why on earth and FSM above would you continue to think that thunderbolts is an accurate description of the asteroids, comets and planets when they're constantly shown to be not just wrong but observationally disproven.
Nw I'm a cynic as well as a skeptic so I can be a blunt instrument on these forums sometimes, but when someone who actually knows WTF they're taking about in a given subject comes in here I read and look for the evidence and references that they bring to the table. Then when I look what the EU/PC bring to the table and compare. And the EU /PC hypothesis isn't just wrong on the maths, it isn't just wrong on the observations and interepretations, and it isn't just wrong on the qualitative and quantitative data predicted and observed. It's wrong on all those things, and demonstrably shown to be that.
Look at the evidence and then make a prediction about what you should see in "x" case if EU/PC is correct. Then post those predictions and we shall look for what they suggest. If the observations are not significantly different from the ones predicted by standard theories then they're of little utility. If you find something that is significantly different, can be quantified and replicated, and is also consistent with an EU/PC model then you maybhave something. But frankly, I don't think that will be the case, because there is no EU/PC model, just bloggers and wannabe physicists who didn't make the math grades necessary for real physics pontificating to a small crowd of contrarians.
Sorry again to the other posters and to Haig himself for the ramble. I'm finding my mind wandering a lot lately and when it does this stuff just flows out.
I disagree. EU isn't wrong on the quantitative side because it simply doesn't have a quantitative side. Nobody ever presents it. And when competent physicists try to construct a quantitative analysis they just get told they're doing it wrong. And yet the people telling them they're doing it wrong refuse to show them how to do it right.
He IS a bit OTT and he used those words to me.
OK, it it seemed funny to fling it back at him but I understand many may not agree
Can you give a few examples of this?
How about some examples of this? I know RC says that ALL the time but I've never found that to be the case when I looked into it.
I do just that and EU/PC is doing fine. Show me some examples please.
At every one! like what?
What exactly do you think he was wrong about?
What did he get wrong? Is this it? ... "Guess what? He was wrong about cosmology"
I wouldn't. Show me what you mean.
No problem. Glad you got all that out. I could tell it was frustrating you.Sorry again to the other posters and to Haig himself for the ramble. I'm finding my mind wandering a lot lately and when it does this stuff just flows out.
I haven't a lot of time for this and when the better weather comes along I'll just disappear until next winter.
So just give me the facts, if you can, that show the flaws in the EU/PC case and I'll give my honest view on it.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
A reminder - it is not an ad hom to reply to somone who shows signs of being obsessed or deluded if they keep on writing posts that show that they are obsesive or deluded .A reminder - it is not an ad hom to call someone obsessive or delusional if they show signs of being obsessed or deluded.
P.S. This is not Zeuzzz who is the person I actually replied to in full because he seemed to be unaware of all of the EC flaws that make it a stupid idea. I suspect that Zeuzzz has a better thgan primary school education and knows that 3.0 is greater then 0.6
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
BTW those are my words. It is honest of you to admit that you are a perfect fit of somone who "show signs of being obsessed or deluded"Nope, just RC
edit:
btw, those are his words but he is a perfect fit ;-)
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Haig, you do know that one of the signs of being deluded is ignoring things that contradict your delusion. Have you been ignoring:
- The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
- Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles)
Haig & nvidiot - I suggest that we keep to the thread topic and not derail into the EU/PC ideas. There are other threads for those psuedo-sciences.
Birkeland was wrong about everything except the aurora and solar wind composition.
Alfven was wrong about Plasma Cosmology (N.B. this is not the undefined non-science that is plasma cosmology)
nvidiot probably means:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
The charge in the inner solar system is measured how? What charge is on a comet to produce a coma?
Why do other objects in the same orbits, same places, same space weather not show comas?
An easier explanation than the hidden variable of 'where did that charge come from' if it is not from orbits, placement or space weather is that some bodies are made of gasses that are frozen and when they heat up they outgas.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Thunderbolts lies:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110216fairy.htm
"A Galactic Fairy Ring"
"The first fairy dances a fantasy of Redshift-is-Proportional-to-Distance, overlooking half a century of contrary evidence. "
Contrary evidence
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050610arptest.htm
The evidence that the quazar is in the galaxy is NOT THERE, there is NO EVIDENCE that teh quazar is in the galaxy in the foreground. No gravitational effects, no nothing, just a reference to Halto Arp, who does NOT demonstrate that the quazar is in the galaxy. Arp shows a very weak correlation that the QSO is interacting with the galaxy.
"For the ring to appear as bright as it does, a second fairy must dance a pas de deux of Super Luminosity. " Funny how the link
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050221ulastronomy.htm
Provides NO EVIDENCE of a problem with super luminosity. There is a vague reference to some vague thing that Arp said, that is NOT evidence.
"Since the ring is constrained by the Assumption of Equivalence of Mass and Matter, a fourth fairy must squeeze in—and be squeezed to a supernatural density."
So they have some problem with density?
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=tyybhrr8&keywords=black hole
"Black holes tear logic apart"
So they think that gravity does not exist and they think that gravity does not effect photons?
And so what do we have hear Haig, a bunch of lies assembled to make a pretend story.
Arp is wrong, Dingle has not demonstrated that black holes do not exist. Dingle has not shown that gravity does not effect photons.
Arp has no alternative explanation for red shift. he has no data to show a strong correlation between gravitationally disrupted galaxies and QSOs.
In fact lies and wrong.
And that is only the first paragraph.
I can and will go through this with you Arp is wrong, Dingle is wrong and so is Thunderbolts.
This is not 1984 the novel, repeating a lie does not make it true, it is still a lie.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110216fairy.htm
"A Galactic Fairy Ring"
"The first fairy dances a fantasy of Redshift-is-Proportional-to-Distance, overlooking half a century of contrary evidence. "
Contrary evidence
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050610arptest.htm
The evidence that the quazar is in the galaxy is NOT THERE, there is NO EVIDENCE that teh quazar is in the galaxy in the foreground. No gravitational effects, no nothing, just a reference to Halto Arp, who does NOT demonstrate that the quazar is in the galaxy. Arp shows a very weak correlation that the QSO is interacting with the galaxy.
"For the ring to appear as bright as it does, a second fairy must dance a pas de deux of Super Luminosity. " Funny how the link
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050221ulastronomy.htm
Provides NO EVIDENCE of a problem with super luminosity. There is a vague reference to some vague thing that Arp said, that is NOT evidence.
"Since the ring is constrained by the Assumption of Equivalence of Mass and Matter, a fourth fairy must squeeze in—and be squeezed to a supernatural density."
So they have some problem with density?
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=tyybhrr8&keywords=black hole
"Black holes tear logic apart"
So they think that gravity does not exist and they think that gravity does not effect photons?
And so what do we have hear Haig, a bunch of lies assembled to make a pretend story.
Arp is wrong, Dingle has not demonstrated that black holes do not exist. Dingle has not shown that gravity does not effect photons.
Arp has no alternative explanation for red shift. he has no data to show a strong correlation between gravitationally disrupted galaxies and QSOs.
In fact lies and wrong.
And that is only the first paragraph.
I can and will go through this with you Arp is wrong, Dingle is wrong and so is Thunderbolts.
This is not 1984 the novel, repeating a lie does not make it true, it is still a lie.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Just thinking (a little off topic): I wonder if EU proponents are also passionate advocates of so-called "alternative medicine" -- since both belief systems are based on ignorance of actual science and have hard core conspiratorial underpinnings?
Not to mention that when one looks at the numbers implied by the claims one discovers they are insignificant (at least with homeopathy on the alt med side).
Zeuzzz
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,211
Just thinking (A Little off topic) aren't most of your posts nowadays in these really non productive, stereotypical and full of fallacies?
A reminder - it is not an ad hom to reply to somone who shows signs of being obsessed or deluded if they keep on writing posts that show that they are obsesive or deluded .
P.S. This is not Zeuzzz who is the person I actually replied to in full because he seemed to be unaware of all of the EC flaws that make it a stupid idea. I suspect that Zeuzzz has a better thgan primary school education and knows that 3.0 is greater then 0.6
Can we stop this roundabout so I can get offBTW those are my words. It is honest of you to admit that you are a perfect fit of somone who "show signs of being obsessed or deluded"
Thunderbolts
predictions pending
"Below is a list of predictions based on Electric Universe principles which are yet to be confirmed/refuted. The link above provides a list of confirmed predictions."
http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions_pending.htm
predictions confirmed
"In science one of the best markers for the accuracy of a model or theory is how well it predicts outcomes. This applies not only to future events but can also be applied to existing data. Below is a collection of predictions based on Electric Universe principles, which have been confirmed by observations and data. The link above provides a list of pending predictions.
At present this list concentrates on those things predicted before the event, but will be expanded in the future to cover many facets of modern astrophysics and cosmology."
http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm
Yes, good suggestion. So why don't you do that?
Debunking Misconceptions About the Electric Universe - PART ONE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhyHCj_cVKk&feature=player_embedded
“In the nearly eight years since the website Thunderbolts.info has gone online, perhaps the most common request we've received from readers is that we address the innumerable misrepresentations of the Electric Universe hypothesis on the Internet. Newcomers to the theory face an arduous task of sorting through the considerable confusion created by pseudoskeptics. It's not reasonable to expect proponents of "mainstream" theory to immediately embrace the EU; but it is reasonable to ask that EU critics make the effort to learn what the theory actually proposes before loudly denouncing it. Unfortunately, the most vocal opponents of the EU have consistently failed on this front.”
http://current.com/news/92912562_debunking-misconceptions-about-the-electric-universe.htm
A little off topic
Characteristics of pseudoskeptics
The first extensive analysis of the term pseudoskepticism was conducted by Marcello Truzzi, Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University, who in 1987 claimed that pseudoskeptics show the following characteristics:
The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,[2]
Double standards in the application of criticism, [3]
The making of judgements without full inquiry,[4]
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,[5]
Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,[6]
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof, [7]
Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.' [8]
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof, [9]
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims,[10]
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence,[11]
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it,[12]
Tendency to dismiss all evidence, [13]
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Pseudoskepticism
How many boxes can you guys tick?
Getting back on topic
Comet
"A comet is a body in the solar system that orbits the Sun. It consists of a nucleus that is perhaps made of rock, dust, and ice, and may exhibits a coma (atmosphere, with associated ionosphere, magnetosphere, sometimes called a plasmasphere), and/or one or more tails: an ion tail (or plasma tail) and dust tail.
In the plasma of the solar wind, and due to the photoelectric effect, the comet nucleus may charge electrostatically, and the ions and dust in the ionosphere and tails produce their own magnetic and electric fields, and electric currents."
Comet
"A comet is a body in the solar system that orbits the Sun. It consists of a nucleus that is perhaps made of rock, dust, and ice, and may exhibits a coma (atmosphere, with associated ionosphere, magnetosphere, sometimes called a plasmasphere), and/or one or more tails: an ion tail (or plasma tail) and dust tail.
In the plasma of the solar wind, and due to the photoelectric effect, the comet nucleus may charge electrostatically, and the ions and dust in the ionosphere and tails produce their own magnetic and electric fields, and electric currents."
Huh? Why does a tendency to deny something that is clearly false classify someone as a pseudosceptic?
An example where I have done this?
Again, if the basic tenets are clearly false why inquire further?
The work is "discredited" by the fact it bares no relation to reality. If you find this a problem I suggest you give up on science altogether and try something altogether easier... daydreaming perhaps?
Do those who ridicule others for ignoring electromagnetism and then completely ignore our understanding of electromagnetism not deserve ridicule?
It is the proponent that is meant to present the evidence. That is what is commonly knows as "burden of proof".
Whaty about pseudoscepticism? is that not pejorative?
The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the proponent. Nobody else.
Good job the counter claims to the unsubstantiated claims are both substantiated and quantitative then isn't it?
Empirical evidence like the actual relative strengths of gravity and EM for the sitation in hand not a cherry-picked number from a completely irrelevant scenario?
Nope, it is dismissed for the fact that quantitative assesment shows it to be trivially false. No other reason. It really is that simple.
Nope. But if since there has been no quantitative evidence forthcoming from proponents it is pretty difficult to do that one.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Totally off topicGetting back on topic
Comet
"A comet is a body in the solar system that orbits the Sun. It consists of a nucleus that is perhaps made of rock, dust, and ice, and may exhibits a coma (atmosphere, with associated ionosphere, magnetosphere, sometimes called a plasmasphere), and/or one or more tails: an ion tail (or plasma tail) and dust tail.
In the plasma of the solar wind, and due to the photoelectric effect, the comet nucleus may charge electrostatically, and the ions and dust in the ionosphere and tails produce their own magnetic and electric fields, and electric currents."
That is science not the EC fantasy.
Obviously:
- A comet may charge electrostatically.
- The ions and dust in the ionosphere and tails produce their own magnetic and electric fields, and electric currents.
The EC idea assumes that its readers are so dumb that they do not know the difference between the density of comets (~0.6 g/cc) and the density of asteroids (~3.0 g/cc)
The totally stupid electric comet idea has been debunked
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Can you try reading the Thunderbolt lies:Can we stop this roundabout so I can get off
- The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
All Thunderbolt quotes are from their Predictions Confirmed page. - Anoher lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles)
- Status