Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
In this paper just out ...

Crashing comets may explain mysterious lunar swirls
But Schultz had a different idea for how the swirls may form — one that has its roots in watching the lunar modules land on the Moon during the Apollo program.

“You could see that the whole area around the lunar modules was smooth and bright because of the gas from the engines scoured the surface,” Schultz said. “That was part of what got me started thinking comet impacts could cause the swirls.”

Comets carry their own gaseous atmosphere called a coma. Schultz thought that when small comets slam into the Moon’s surface — as they occasionally do — the coma may scour away loose soil from the surface, not unlike the gas from the lunar modules. That scouring may produce the bright swirls.


The Electric Comet view disagrees ...

The Reiner Gamma Formation
A high velocity comet impact would not have left a mere surface deposit of powdered debris. There would have been folding of strata along the rim of the impact crater, as well as large boulders and other rock deposits from the blast effect. Those features are missing. Seismic activity/lunar volcanism could explain the dust-like deposits that appear to have “settled out” from the cloud of an eruption event. However, there is no volcanic vent, nor large crack out of which the material could have been ejected. Further, lunar quakes of sufficient magnitude have never been detected by instrument packages left behind by various Apollo missions to the Moon.
According to electrical theorists, a common explanation for each of the geo-morphological features that we have illustrated is that the planets and moons exist within an electric universe. Each solar system object is normally insulated within its individual charge sheath. However, when those sheaths touch, electric charge is exchanged. Therefore, we find that the moon, Io, which orbits within Jupiter’s plasma sheath, is undergoing continuous electrical bombardment from its parent planet.

Reiner Gamma is one more example of surface scarring in an electrically active Solar System. The braided appearance and the deposit’s lack of depth suggest rotating Birkeland currents, draped over the surface, creating a filamentary and pleated look to the light-colored field. The shape of the deposit is suggestive of the auroral curtains that can be seen in the skies of Earth’s polar regions. Reiner Gamma may be the result of similar activity by energetic streamers from the sun or another charged body
 
Not really a twist tusenfem :D

How can a chunk of rock be blasted electrically from the crust of a planet and NOT receive an initial charge ?

That doesn't jive with the newly born Electric Comet on it's highly eccentric orbit assimilating the charge in deep space where it will spend most of it's time ! :p

:eek::jaw-dropp:eek:

I never thought I'd say this, but could you please link to where Thornhill, Talbott et al actually say this. It's something I've never seen before, and would like to see it in writing, so that I can then pass on the link to Tom Bridgman to use as yet another crazy claim for EU in his never ending quest to debunk it.
 
I never thought I'd say this, but could you please link to where Thornhill, Talbott et al actually say this. It's something I've never seen before, and would like to see it in writing, so that I can then pass on the link to Tom Bridgman to use as yet another crazy claim for EU in his never ending quest to debunk it.


HaHaHaHa So you want me to help Tom Bridgman ? Have you seen his site ? now that is crazy :D

You and Tom can do your own digging I've posted enough links to keep you two busy and really there is no need for actual quotes and facts in the making of straw-men arguments :eek:

D. E. Scott Rebuts T. Bridgman PDF
CONCLUSION
Astrophysics pseudo-skeptics like Bridgman have certain recognizable characteristics in common.

1. They speak down to their audience using ‘arguments from authority’.

2. They refuse to consider any electrical causation for anything in space.

3. When confronted with ‘in your face evidence’ such as the image of a high redshifted QSO in front of a more distant, low redshifted galaxy, they resort to arguments (usually involving math or statistics) to disprove – or at least make you doubt – what your eyes are telling you. The old Groucho Marx line comes to mind: “Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?”

4. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths. The fact that they have been voted upon and accepted by a self-involved, insular group of ‘experts’ does not make them true. Winning a hand vote is not the same thing as scientific validation.

5. It is clear that they have never been exposed to the basic properties of plasma nor the fundamental inter-relationships between magnetic fields and electric currents. But they feel free to lecture those who have.

6. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.

When I met Bridgman at his place of employment - NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD on March 16, 2009, he appeared more personable than his rant (and the addendum he has since issued) would indicate. I got the feeling at that meeting that if we could just sit down and talk about things, some area of agreement and mutual respect might be found.

Apparently, from reading what he has written subsequent to this meeting, there is little hope of that.

It should be understood that if there are criticisms made by him that I have apparently neglected to address in detail in my comments here, it should not be assumed I have no response to them.
At this point, I’m tired of wading through his half-truths, misunderstandings, ad hominem cuts, pseudo-intellectual swagger, and ignorance of most things electromagnetic.

Because I see no willingness on Bridgman’s part to discuss things calmly, with mutual respect, he remains, in my view, simply one more pseudo-skeptic who claims to know-it-all – not an open minded scientist.

Nemo me impune lacessit
 
Good morning, Haig.
The question regarding Toutatis, is that it is a rock, as you claim 67P is, it has an eccentric orbit very similar to 67P, it has similar aphelion and perihelion distances to 67P, it is moving through exactly the same medium. So, if it's made of the same stuff, has a very similar eccentricity and similar orbital parameters, why the hell is it NOT charging in the same way as 67P. Get it? Because Thunderdolts says, as you posted, "The same thing would happen to an object of any size on a cometary orbit through the Sun's electric field". Comprende?
Sure, I get it but you don't get it. One of the points of bringing up the electrical scarring on Mars is to show the source of a huge number of Electric Comets blasted off the planet in extreme electrical distress. The events varied in intensity and so did the CHARGE each piece of rock received. It's what makes Electric Comets so unpredictable and interesting. So to spell it out for you in even plainer terms the history of Toutatis and 67P aren't likely to be the same and the charge certainly isn't or they would both be Electric Comets ! Comprende? :p
Let's see if I get it ...

  • asteroids and comets have all been blasted off Mars (and maybe some other rocky planets)
  • the asteroids are not comets because they have no (little) "electric charge"
  • both asteroids and comets have been orbiting the Sun for, at most, a few thousand years
  • no matter how eccentric their orbits are (or are not), being bathed in the solar wind never changes their electric charge
  • the electric charge on asteroids and comets is sufficient to change their density - estimated by standard methods - by factors of many
  • the electric charge can change the estimated density in only one direction; it can make rocks seem less dense than water, but never make them more dense than osmium
  • the electric charge on asteroids and comets cannot be measured, by any technique or technology
  • in particular, space probes such as Rosetta which estimate the electric charge of 67P are measuring something quite different

That about right, Haig?
 
Last edited:
HaHaHaHa So you want me to help Tom Bridgman ? Have you seen his site ? now that is crazy :D

Fine, then I'll just quote the scientifically challenged musings from Thornhill himself;

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/comet-asteroid-link-confirmed/

‘In addition to removing dust, the gargantuan electric forces of an interplanetary thunderbolt are able to loft entire mountains into space from the surface of a planet. Comets and asteroids can be formed this way.

‘And the same discharge that gives birth to comets and asteroids may burn them black and leave distinctive birthmarks in the form of large arc craters. That is how asteroids, like Mathilde, can be covered in gigantic craters without suffering any disruption.'

So, same birth process, but only comets get an initial charge which they then keep, therefore distinguishing them from asteroids, which come about in the same way, but don't get this initial charging. Somehow. Might as well invoke God.

And from the same page;

“..there is no difference between the appearance of a comet nucleus and an asteroid. One schizoid object, Chiron, has been called both an asteroid and a comet at different times. Yet asteroids are thought to be much more evolved bodies than comets. The Electric Universe proposes that their origin is identical and that a cometary display is due entirely to highly eccentric motion of a charged body in the radial electric field of the Sun.”
 
Good morning, Haig.

Let's see if I get it ...

  • asteroids and comets have all been blasted off Mars (and maybe some other rocky planets)
  • the asteroids are not comets because they have no (little) "electric charge"
  • both asteroids and comets have been orbiting the Sun for, at most, a few thousand years
  • no matter how eccentric their orbit is (or is not), being bathed in the solar wind never changes their electric charge
  • the electric charge on asteroids and comets is sufficient to change their density - estimated by standard methods - by factors of many
  • the electric charge can change the estimated density in only one direction; it can make rocks seem less dense than water, but never make them more dense than osmium
  • the electric charge on asteroids and comets cannot be measured, by any technique or technology
  • in particular, space probes such as Rosetta which estimate the electric charge of 67P are measuring something quite different

That about right, Haig?


No JT That's not my understanding and that's not what I posted. But you only need to compare what I posted and what you list to know that. Think again or just quote the source !
 
Last edited:
Good morning again Haig.
No JT That not my understanding and that's not what I posted. But you only need to compare what I posted and what you list to know that.
Well, either my reading comprehension is really bad, or you are doing a really bad job of explaining your understanding (or possibly both).

Seeing as trying to get straight answers from you*, makes getting blood from a stone look trivially easy, my bias is towards you failing to communicate.

Think again or just quote the source !
Just did that, and you said that my summary is not what you said/sourced.

Not going to try again; if you want your ideas to be understood, I suggest that you think again, and try again.

* other than links to videos and non-primary source material, with no meaningful comments by you
 
Fine, then I'll just quote the scientifically challenged musings from Thornhill himself;

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/comet-asteroid-link-confirmed/

‘In addition to removing dust, the gargantuan electric forces of an interplanetary thunderbolt are able to loft entire mountains into space from the surface of a planet. Comets and asteroids can be formed this way.

‘And the same discharge that gives birth to comets and asteroids may burn them black and leave distinctive birthmarks in the form of large arc craters. That is how asteroids, like Mathilde, can be covered in gigantic craters without suffering any disruption.'

So, same birth process, but only comets get an initial charge which they then keep, therefore distinguishing them from asteroids, which come about in the same way, but don't get this initial charging. Somehow. Might as well invoke God.

And from the same page;

“..there is no difference between the appearance of a comet nucleus and an asteroid. One schizoid object, Chiron, has been called both an asteroid and a comet at different times. Yet asteroids are thought to be much more evolved bodies than comets. The Electric Universe proposes that their origin is identical and that a cometary display is due entirely to highly eccentric motion of a charged body in the radial electric field of the Sun.”
Thanks for doing this, jonesdave116.

I think it lays bare the hypocrisy of the living "electrical theorists", and Haig.

It would seem that they have no intention of even trying to develop a coherent story, much less a hypothesis, model, or theory. I found the last sentence you quoted - "The Electric Universe proposes that their origin is identical and that a cometary display is due entirely to highly eccentric motion of a charged body in the radial electric field of the Sun." - particularly telling ... it obviously opens many ways to test this idea (even qualititively), methods which can use some of the massive amount of quantitative data (DIRECT EVIDENCE) already freely available.

And such testing clearly shows stong inconsistency with the data. Which facts both Haig and the living "electrical theorists" most certainly know.

So what do they do, in the face of such strong inconsistencies?

Lie, deny, do Gish Gallops, mount fierce attacks on "the mainstream" (a form of diversion), ban discussion of their ideas, ... exactly what you'd expect from a (fundamentalist) religious cult when faced with challenges to their central dogma ... ;)
 
Lie, deny, do Gish Gallops, mount fierce attacks on "the mainstream" (a form of diversion), ban discussion of their ideas, ... exactly what you'd expect from a (fundamentalist) religious cult when faced with challenges to their central dogma ... ;)


Ad hom, physiological projection and slurs seems to be your MO now JT :D

Here is the Electric Comet hypothesis and required topics presented extremely well and easily understood whether you agree with it or not it's clear.

HERE : HERE : HERE : HERE & HERE


Always happy to try to answer or point the way for genuine questions that you can't find the answers too. - No time-wasters ;)

That reminds me ! How are you getting on with your critique of the Safire Project dear JT ?
 
Ad hom, physiological projection and slurs seems to be your MO now JT :D
May I quote someone I think you know quite well?

"No [...] That not my understanding and that's not what I posted. But you only need to compare what I posted and what you list to know that."

Here is the Electric Comet hypothesis and required topics presented extremely well and easily understood whether you agree with it or not it's clear.

HERE :
Video, not a primary source.

No primary sources re the ech.

No primary sources re the ech.

No primary sources re the ech.

No primary sources re the ech.

So, "the Electric Comet hypothesis" is not presented. Care to try again Haig?

Always happy to try to answer or point the way for genuine questions that you can't find the answers too. - No time-wasters ;)
Been there, done that, didn't get a T-shirt. :(

For example, how about answering these questions?
JeanTate said:
But since you have posted them, perhaps you can answer some questions about them, right?

Here are just three to get you started:

* how can you derive "likelihood of a hot surface" from the ech, Haig?

* how does "visible electrical erosion of the surface in the fashion of electrical etching of surface materials and electric discharge machining (edm)" follow from the ech, Haig?

* Haig, using the ech, can you please derive this: "improbable hydrogen cloud gathered and held in place at the outer regions of the coma"?
(source)

That reminds me ! How are you getting on with your critique of the Safire Project dear JT ?
Waiting for you to answer my questions, Haig! :D

(link later) link
 
Last edited:
So what's your vast insight into the Safire Project ? JT :rolleyes:

Can't speak for JT, but the following line from the PDF tells you all you need to know: "Further refinements in Juregen’s theory have been put forth, but the exact mechanism that could account for an electrically powered sun is still under question."
For "under question" read "nobody can come up with something that actually makes any sense, or would account for the lack of observational data to support it, and wouldn't get ripped to pieces by a high school physics major."
 
Can't speak for JT, but the following line from the PDF tells you all you need to know: "Further refinements in Juregen’s theory have been put forth, but the exact mechanism that could account for an electrically powered sun is still under question."
For "under question" read "nobody can come up with something that actually makes any sense, or would account for the lack of observational data to support it, and wouldn't get ripped to pieces by a high school physics major."

You seem a little bitter ;) Did you actually read the paper ?

I expect JT will have a more constructive critique than you :D Then again, maybe not :p

JMP and SAFIRE: What makes the sun shine? PDF
Paul E. Anderson et al Dec 2014
Visually, the anode bears a striking resemblance to the sun, and visible layers of charge separation (Figure 9). These observations lend both quantitative and qualitative indications that the electric sun hypothesis warrants further critical study and evaluation. JMP continues to be an integral tool in the design, test, and analysis of this hypothesis.


Some background info on the SAFIRE Project from Sept 2012

The SAFIRE Project:Testing the Electric Sun
Published on 23 Sep 2012
Outside of the earth, the Sun is the most heavily studied body in the solar system. Yet almost all of the Sun's features present major quandaries for solar physicists. But now, an expert on "Design of Experiment" methodologies, Monty Childs, is heading up a project to demonstrate how an electrified plasma environment can produce the enigmatic features of the Sun in the laboratory. Monty and his research group are confident that the technology is now available to rigorously test the electric Sun hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
You seem a little bitter ;) Did you actually read the paper ?

I expect JT will have a more constructive critique than you :D Then again, maybe not :p

JMP and SAFIRE: What makes the sun shine? PDF
Paul E. Anderson et al Dec 2014

Yes, I read it. Apparently, from the fifth line in, the surface of the Sun operates in the 3000 - 4000 K range!!! First I'd heard of it.
Without a mechanism to power it, the rest is just going into stuff that has already been explained by nuclear fusion being the mechanism that powers it. So it's all a bit irrelevant until they find a power source, really.
I mean, good luck getting something like that published in a scientific journal, but the first question that is going to be asked is "where is the power coming from?" As I say, without that, the rest is irrelevant.
I know there have been various contradictory models proposed, but none of them are in the least bit feasible and, again, wouldn't get past the editor's desk at any respectable science journal, never mind the referees.
What are they trying to accomplish here? Something to convince the "mainstream", or just a vanity project to stiffen the sinews of the already converted?
 
Yes, I read it. Apparently, from the fifth line in, the surface of the Sun operates in the 3000 - 4000 K range!!! First I'd heard of it.
Without a mechanism to power it, the rest is just going into stuff that has already been explained by nuclear fusion being the mechanism that powers it. So it's all a bit irrelevant until they find a power source, really.
I mean, good luck getting something like that published in a scientific journal, but the first question that is going to be asked is "where is the power coming from?" As I say, without that, the rest is irrelevant.
I know there have been various contradictory models proposed, but none of them are in the least bit feasible and, again, wouldn't get past the editor's desk at any respectable science journal, never mind the referees.
What are they trying to accomplish here? Something to convince the "mainstream", or just a vanity project to stiffen the sinews of the already converted?


A power source to drive the Electric Sun ?

I guess you haven't read much of the EU / PC stuff because that's a given.

Galactic Birkeland currents drive an Electric Sun :eek:

Electric Galaxies
“Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure.”
—Hannes Alfvén.

Could stars form like beads along a string ? A Galactic Birkeland current being the string ;)

THE GALACTIC SCALE
There is a spiral density wave with two large concentrations of gas in the dust lane, 107 M⊙ each, and star formation in each concentration. When there are several of these concentrations along part of an arm, they look like "beads on a string"
 
JeanTate said:
For example, how about answering these questions?
Nope, refer to original poster and my previous post :D
Got it.

You either don't know how to answer/the answers, or you know that the honest answers would require you to explicitly contradict the ech and/or the central dogma of "the EU".

I guess that's about as close as a 'true believer' will ever come.

Just posted for background info :D

So what's your vast insight into the Safire Project ? JT :rolleyes:
I have many takes on it (not insights), but am waiting for you to answer those questions before I post them.

Well, except for this: as Haig is on record as *insisting* that all work on plasmas must explicitly incorporate Alfven's key critiques, and as SAFIRE fails to do that, then Haig *must* insist that SAFIRE is doomed to failure ... however, I do not expect that Haig would be honest enough to come out and say this; perhaps it's one reason why Haig is so steadfast in refusing to answer my questions?

Have a nice day! :p
You too. :D
 
Some background information jonesdave116 that should answer a few of your questions. Don't share this with that JT I've got him on ignore now :p

Hannes Alfvén
In 1937 Alfvén argued that if plasma pervaded the universe, it could then carry electric currents capable of generating a galactic magnetic field[3]. After winning the Nobel Prize for his works in magnetohydrodynamics, he emphasized that:

"In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents. Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure"[4]
In 1974, his theoretical work on field-aligned electric currents in the aurora (based on earlier work by Kristian Birkeland) was confirmed by satellite observations, resulting in the discovery of Birkeland currents.


Comet
Interaction with interplanetary medium

Immersed in the plasma of the interplanetary medium, a comet may be associated with:

Electrostatic charging of the comet nucleus,[3] and, charging of the dust,[4] resulting in levitation of dust from the comet surface,[4]

Coagulation of grains with opposite potentials,[5] and the opposite process, disruption (break-up) of grains with high potentials,[4]

Plasma instabilities in the tail,[4]

Folding of the interplanetary magnetic field into the tail of the comet (Alfvén's "folding umbrella" hydromagnetic model, 1957)[6] [7]

A cometary current system including plasma tail streamers separated by a neutral current sheet, with a total current exceeding 108A,[7]

A shock-ionopause current system, a tail current system, and a field-aligned auroral current system,[2]

The flow of such field-aligned currents leading to the generation of strong localized field-aligned electric fields (double layers),[2] [8]

Acceleration of electrons to keV energies in such double layers would lead to the observed enhanced fluxes of suprathermal electrons.[2]

Production of X-rays (e.g. such as those detected from Comet Hyakutake,[9][10][11] confirming the presence of Birkeland currents (field-align currents),[12]

Jets, such as those produced and modelled by Kristian Birkeland's theory,[13]

The generation of magnetic fields and electric currents in cometary plasma tails, up to a billion Amps, [14] first proposed by Alfvén in 1957,[6] and "strikingly established during the crossing of the plasma tail of Comet Giacobini—Zinner by the ICE spacecraft on September 11, 1985 (Smith et al., 1986)"[15] [7]

Currents in the cometary atmosphere,[16]

Outbursts from the comet nucleus resulting form macroscopic electric double layers,[17]

The origin of comet striae (banding) in dust tails,[18]

Inner coma cometary plasma formation by the critical ionization velocity mechanism,[19] [20]

Filamentary structure in comet tails interpreted as evidence of field-aligned currents (Birkeland currents),[7]

A "cometary aurora" due to "current discharges into the atmosphere from the tail"[21]

Possible ionization of the inner coma due to cross-tail currents closing through the cometary head.[22]

In 2004, NASA's Stardust spacecraft on a mission to comet Wild 2 (pronounced "Vilt 2"), "found 20 jets, on both the sunlit side of the comet and, surprisingly, the dark side"
 
<snipped for brevity>
As to what Alfvén thought in 1937 - ya know, back before we had space probes... and radio astronomy... and IR and UV etc. astronomy... not to mention 78 years more research and observations - might, just possibly, have been shown to be an inaccurate hypothesis by all that new data?

Sumpin' you just might wanna' consider, huh Haig ?:rolleyes:
 
A power source to drive the Electric Sun ?

I guess you haven't read much of the EU / PC stuff because that's a given.

Galactic Birkeland currents drive an Electric Sun :eek:

Guess you don't understand science much, Haig. In case it has escaped your attention, Birkeland currents would actually be noticed were they operating in our solar system. The electron densities implied by various electric Sun models would be noticed. Perratt, no supporter of electric Sun nonsense, even predicted the synchrotron radiation that we should see were his galaxy scale Birkeland currents actually operating, and causing the rotation we see in galaxies. COBE, WMAP and Planck failed to see them. Perratt hasn't bothered with his hypothesis since 1995. Nobody cites it. Interesting idea, didn't work. And he predicted we should see those at galactic distances. Really do think we'd see one in our own galaxy, let alone solar system.
All the high priests of EU have had a go at an electric Sun model, all of them fail miserably. Hence why the SAFIRE PDF says it is still "under question". Nobody has got a clue. Is it incoming electrons? Then where are the buggers? Plenty of stuff out there that can detect them, not to mention the effect they would have on the night side of planets, satellites and humans in space. Is it incoming ions (protons)? Same problem, except protons are even nastier. And so it goes on. Believe me, if someone had found a model that matched observation and theory, they'd probably have managed to get it published in a respectable journal by now.
Suggest you look here: http://dealingwithcreationisminastr...10/the-sad-state-of-electric-suns-not-so.html

And for a synopsis of a supposedly serious idea, I really do suggest you look at that fifth line again, and then do a search on Wikipedia for "temperature of the photosphere".
 
As to what Alfvén thought in 1937 - ya know, back before we had space probes... and radio astronomy... and IR and UV etc. astronomy... not to mention 78 years more research and observations - might, just possibly, have been shown to be an inaccurate hypothesis by all that new data?

Sumpin' you just might wanna' consider, huh Haig ?:rolleyes:


You might want to look him up before commenting further :p

Hannes Alfvén
Alfvén made many contributions to plasma physics, including theories describing the behavior of aurorae, the Van Allen radiation belts, the effect of magnetic storms on the Earth's magnetic field, the terrestrial magnetosphere, and the dynamics of plasmas in the Milky Way galaxy.
Alfvén played a central role in the development of:

Plasma physics
Charged particle beams
Interplanetary medium
Magnetospheric physics
Magnetohydrodynamics
Solar phenomena investigation (such as the solar wind)
Aurorae science
Awards
Foreign Member of the Royal Society of London[19]
Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1967)
Nobel Prize in Physics (1970) for his work on magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)
Franklin Medal of the Franklin Institute (1971)
Lomonosov Gold Medal of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1971)
William Bowie Medal of the American Geophysical Union (1988) for his work on comets and plasmas in the Solar system


The Scientific Legacy of Hannes Alfvén May 2012
Alfvén died on 2 April 1995. The scientific heritage of Alfvén is one with many facets. It includes new fields of research that he opened; powerful tools that he invented and that greatly facilitated scientific work in space and plasma physics; brave new concepts; stimulating, often controversial ideas;
and the vision of a new paradigm in cosmic physics—the Plasma Universe. The frequency with which his name is still mentioned in any conference on space plasma physics is an indicator of how relevant his work is to the
scientific community even today.


Alfvén Triumphs Again (and Again) May 2011
a final word from Alfvén, who took the unprecedented step of predicting in his December 11, 1970 Nobel prize acceptance speech the eventual crash of astrophysics at the end of its long dark tunnel: “In conclusion, it seems that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of theoretical astrophysicists who have gotten their education from the listed textbooks. The multibillion dollar space data from astronomical telescopes should be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics, circuit theory, and, of course, modern plasma physics. More than 99 percent of the Universe consists of plasma, and the ratio between electromagnetic and gravitational forces is 1039.”
- H. Alfvén, NASA Conference Publication 2469, 1986, p. 16.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom