If you'd actually looked at a even a little of the video you'd realise the electric Sun is an intrinsic part of the presentation.
So, since "the electric Sun" is convincingly ruled out by a wide range of independent kinds of solid evidence, we do not need to spend much time on "The Electric Comet theory".
Care to give some papers where the Standard Model of Comets has predicted what facts and events surrounding active comets INSTEAD of being totally surprised by them then pushing out ad-hoc papers to try to explain things.
I have never understood this kind of reason, perhaps you'd like to expand on it some Haig?
Even if it's true that "some papers" (I think you meant the scientists who spend time researching comets) are "totally surprised" by "facts and events surrounding active comets" - they aren't (this is one of the EUers fave rhetorical devices, or 'lies' as RC calls them) - how can that be evidence for "The Electric Comet theory"? Isn't your logic here equivalent to "explanation A is incorrect, THEREFORE explanation B MUST be right"?
The Electric Comet theory, as shown in great detail in the video, successfully explained and predicted (ahem, before the event) comet behaviour.
As RC never tires in pointing out, there are no - zero, none, zip - objective, independently verifiable explanations and predictions published
before the relevant "comet behaviour". Instead, there is revisionism (altering 'pre-event documents' to change their meaning ... after the event), hand-waving (vague, ambiguous statements that is anything but objective), inaccuracy (that's being polite, 'bald-faced lies' if you're not), and so on.
Most curious, for something which purports to be scientific, there's nothing quantitative.
This video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34wtt2EUToo is by far the best explanation we have to-date imo.
I'm glad you are comfortable with you 'o'.
In terms of science - keep in mind which section of JREF this thread is in - would you care to say a few words on why you think it is "by far the best" scientific explanation?
Even just look at the long list of credits
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/08/05/electric-comet-credits/ and you may appreciate that this critical analysis of textbook theory can/should have a major impact on comet science.
Here's something I found curious: it looks like the people who put the video together did absolutely no independent research of their own!
OK, you can't really expect them to build, launch, and operate an independent space mission - to visit a comet up close and personal - or even to put a dedicated telescope into LEO. But it seems they made no ground-based observations; they did not build (or purchase, or ...) their own observatory, not even one a serious amateur astronomer might have.
True, they may have obtained a PC or two, and purchased some software for it ... but if so it was used for video editing, not developing models of a comet and its environment, or simulating chemical reactions in conditions they expect in comet comas, etc.
Sorry Haig, for this JREF member, your list is a damning indictment of these woosters, a textbook-perfect example of crackpot methods.
!
!)
?
