Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
Gravity is what qualifies as magic for you now?

Or maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe math is magic. After all, it's beyond your comprehension, and Velikovsky sure as hell didn't use any.
Click to expand...

Gravity???

Jupiter migrated in then back out???

Sounds a little like the hoky poky dance! :) you put your left foot in you put your left foot out and you shake it all about :D

Grand Tack Hypothesis

and all this migrating action had zero electrical effects??

Pass the dutchie ziggurat 'ol mate! :cool:
 
Sol88 said:
Gravity???
Click to expand...

Yes, Sol, gravity. The same thing that controls the orbits of planets right now.

Jupiter migrated in then back out???
Click to expand...

Your incredulity isn't relevant.

and all this migrating action had zero electrical effects??
Click to expand...

None relevant to the orbital mechanics. Just like electrical effects aren't relevant to the orbital mechanics of planets right now. Why would it?

Pass the dutchie ziggurat 'ol mate! :cool:
Click to expand...

Your drug habits are not of interest to me, though they may explain your EU infatuation.
 
rwguinn said:
WTF is all this about?
Click to expand...

He thinks it's hypocritical for mainstream science to form a theory where Jupiter's orbit changes, but to criticize Velikovsky for his theories about orbits changing. Never mind that one of those theories has a physically possible mechanism and the other doesn't, his understanding of science is too shallow to even understand why that difference matters.
 
To a newbie, the Grand Tack hypothesis sounds a LOT like a Velikovskian orbit-catastrophe, right? No, there's a big difference.

Here is how the Grand Tack idea was discovered:
  • Physicists wrote a hypothesis for the dust/gas density in the early Solar System.
  • Physicists hypothesized about where Jupiter started off in this dust disk.
  • Physicists plugged those hypotheses into a computer, told the computer to apply the laws of motion and gravity to everything, and watched what happened.
  • Physicists concluded that Jupiter could have moved through the Solar System in the way described.

That's different than:

  • Velikovsky read some ancient myths and hypothesized that some descriptions referred to Saturn.
  • Velikovsky drew some pictures, including pictures of Saturn on new orbits he made up and of giant lightning bolts he made up.
 
I have made an amaaaaaazing discovery. On YouTube!

https://youtu.be/xwrAsNdODnE

Since I am a scientist and not an EU/PCer, I will tell you what's in the video in case you don't want to watch it. It turns out that if you pour Coca-Cola into a pan of molten lead, the lead solidifies with a collection of RIPPLES AND CRATERS that look just like a MOON. To my eye, this Coke-quenched lead looks much more like a moon than Doug Scott's electric-arc experiments do.

I will contact Scott to inform him that Electric Universe theory has been overturned and that the Molten Lead Pepsiverse hypothesis is the new best science.
 
Heads up for UK residents; there is a Rosetta special on The Sky at Night, BBC4 this Sunday at 2000 hrs.
 
:)
ben m said:
To a newbie, the Grand Tack hypothesis sounds a LOT like a Velikovskian orbit-catastrophe, right? No, there's a big difference.

Here is how the Grand Tack idea was discovered:
  • Physicists wrote a hypothesis for the dust/gas density in the early Solar System.
  • Physicists hypothesized about where Jupiter started off in this dust disk.
  • Physicists plugged those hypotheses into a computer, told the computer to apply the laws of motion and gravity to everything, and watched what happened.
  • Physicists concluded that Jupiter could have moved through the Solar System in the way described.

That's different than:

  • Velikovsky read some ancient myths and hypothesized that some descriptions referred to Saturn.
  • Velikovsky drew some pictures, including pictures of Saturn on new orbits he made up and of giant lightning bolts he made up.
Click to expand...

Why does Venus have a retrograde rotation?

Why does Jupiter complete a full day in only 9.925hrs

Mmm.......I know let's say Jupiter migrated around the solar system! Plug the numbers into a computer, massage it a little a viola!

Just as Velikovski asked
why the planets have larger angular velocity of daily rotation and yearly revolution than the sun could have imparted to them. Third, what made some of the satellites revolve retrogradely, or in a direction opposite to that of most of the members of the solar system?
Click to expand...
LINK

PS I've never actually read Worlds in Collision before and since the big bangers here constantly refer to him I guess it behoves me to find out more about this man and his ideas.

I also struggle to understand how the mainstream disregard out of hand our ancient past. I'm sure a lot of myth and legend was not all religious mumbo jumbo


Ohh... and I have seen cave paintings/petroglyph's that are a least a couple thousand years old where I live that gives credence to some of the stuff Velikovski says.

i think that trumps snow plow ice that's harder than steel or some crap being spouted in the comments above!


They designed the lander FOR those conditions and FAILED completely! :p

The very fact Philea bounced should have been the end of the 0.47 g/cm3 argument and the fact MUPUS confirmed the surface under the dust layer was MUCH harder then expected. (Mainstreams best guess, ICE)

But hey if you can run it thru a computer using very elegant mathematical equations... then well I guess it HAS to be correct?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
The very fact Philea bounced should have been the end of the 0.47 g/cm3 argument
Click to expand...

Only if you don't understand science. You don't determine gravity by something bouncing, although its bounces were fully in line with the gravity that the mass, and therefore the density, implies. It has already been explained countless times how the mass is calculated. Your ignorance of that science is not a plus point in favour of EU fantasy. It just shows that you are ignorant of the science. Had the gravity been greater than that implied by the measured mass and density, then Philae would have hit the surface a lot sooner, and at greater velocity than had been expected. It didn't.

And therefore you still cannot explain the density of 67P, nor account for the directly observed H20 and CO2 (among others) on this and other comets.
 
Sol88 said:
I also struggle to understand how the mainstream disregard out of hand our ancient past. I'm sure a lot of myth and legend was not all religious mumbo jumbo
Click to expand...

But a lot of it was.. And what wasn't was recorded with... questionable fidelity. And what was observable without any telescopes was quite limited.

And Velikovsky's ideas violate conservation laws, so whatever those ancient records might actually have to do with astrophysics, it sure as hell isn't Velikovsky.

Ohh... and I have seen cave paintings/petroglyph's that are a least a couple thousand years old where I live that gives credence to some of the stuff Velikovski says.
Click to expand...

That's because you're scientifically illiterate and credulous.

The very fact Philea bounced should have been the end of the 0.47 g/cm3 argument
Click to expand...

Why would it do that, when the bounce depends only on surface conditions, not the bulk average? The 0.47 g/cm3 measurement (not "argument") should have been the end of the ECH, but it's a number, and you don't do numbers.

But hey if you can run it thru a computer using very elegant mathematical equations... then well I guess it HAS to be correct?
Click to expand...

No. But it has the possibility of being correct. But if you can't run the numbers, especially simple numbers (like 0.47 g/cm3), then it HAS to be wrong.
 
Ziggurat said:
And Velikovsky's ideas violate conservation laws, so whatever those ancient records might actually have to do with astrophysics, it sure as hell isn't Velikovsky.
Click to expand...

Have any Velikovskians or neo-Velikovskians argued that the conservation laws are flawed, or not fully understood, or similar? That would be entertaining.

...

Well, some quick Google searches only found a few random Thunderbolts commentators skeptical of the conservation of momentum (or of the concept of momentum itself), but that's it. Bummer.
 
Sol88 said:
NO ONE HERE CAN EXPLAIN TO ME HOW TO GET JUPITER TEMPORARILY MIGRATE, CAN THEY???

PLEASE and explanation for all those reading this thread would clear up this little bump.
Click to expand...

why not do a literature search on ADS and read the published papers on solar system dynamics and migration of planets during the early phase
It took me all but 3 seconds to find a 2015 paper on the topic , and thence through the references many many more
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
So, does Philae having enough electricity now mean the ech is validated?????

Ahhrrgggg, the stress of knowing something good has happened, and you have to wait another two hours until the official press release has been made public.
Click to expand...

Haha.
I hope Philae is at a reasonable inclination, and that they can get it anchored. I predict the ech idea has as long left as it takes Philae to get that drill into the surface, among other things. Real boost if all is well, with Rosetta having to keep its distance for some time yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

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