The Electric Comet theory

[Sol88]

Not to be snide, but I have actually taken several college-level courses in astronomy while pursuing my degree. Do you have a citation for "invented to save the maths"?

Seems that's the problem, you are telling the story as told to you.

And also, not to be snide but have a read up on what the EU say on all your above points, you'd be surprised.

 

[Sol88]

My paragraph on ballistics was meant to display how models can and do work in reality. Bear in mind that those responsible for ballistic trajectories much also account for electromagnetic radiation and interference. Considering the success rate of the various probes and rovers, I would say that we understand electromagnetism pretty well. At least well enough to factor it into the designs of our probes. Our deep-space probes didn't explode upon reaching some magical point in space, and neither have any of our stellar-distance probes orbiting various bodies. If every body in the solar system has some kind of voltage differential, how come our probes have not exploded in a fantastic fireworks display? Why did Philae not explode when it landed upon the electric comet?

The arrogance is astounding.

Oh you understand it very well problem is mainstream has just treated it as a problem...Space Charge when it should be the source of power like the STS-75 mission. We found the keys to the Universe and then promptly forgot about it, why? the dust bunnys seemed very interested in what we were doing!

 

[Vermonter]

Seems that's the problem, you are telling the story as told to you.

And also, not to be snide but have a read up on what the EU say on all your above points, you'd be surprised.

Please, open up a college textbook in astronomy and read it. It's not a bedtime story meant to be accepted as gospel. I'm serious, find a good textbook about astronomy and read it. If you think that all astronomers and astrophysicists all indoctrinated into The Official Story and unable to come up with any original ideas, then I am sad to say that you are mistaken.

Textbooks actually explain how the models came to be and how they are used. You can use them to check the work of others. I've yet to see EC/U produce anything close to that. What's the voltage differential between the sun and a given object at radius R? What happens when two objects orbit near one another? Do they discharge due to a voltage differential? How? Do objects gain charge through orbital dynamics? How is this charge stored, and what is the mechanism that drives it? The "looks like a bunny" routine fails at every level.

Give us a way to test the idea. Please.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning Haig.

<irrelevant stuff snipped>

Hey JeanTate no comment on The SAFIRE Project latest ? Don't disappoint me now

The SAFIRE Project and JMP®: What Makes Our Sun Shine?



Links can be found HERE

I responded to your posts on SAFIRE twice, in post #1830 (23rd November 2014), and in post #1837 (same date).

As you did not reply, I assumed you had no interest in SAFIRE.

Would you be so kind as to reply to my two earlier posts, Haig? Then we can continue to discuss SAFIRE (at least as it pertains to the ech).

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning, Sol88.

Happy New Year again, Sol88

I have never said it was not standard physics it's just never been apllied to comets i.e we have never, before the Rosetta mission, probed for dusty plasma. it's allways about the sublimating ice.

Do you mind if I ask, how did you come to this conclusion?

Because that's what we, the gullible public, have been told...time and time again and if you don't believe us then we'll dazzle you with some maths.

and if you can't do the maths yourself then how would you know what we are talking about?

Thanks.

It seems my question was unclear to you; let me rephrase it.

Sol88, how did you come to the conclusion that the physics of dusty plasmas had never been applied to comets ("before the Rosetta mission")?

To explain a bit: as you have not - until very recently - cited any primary sources, I suspect that you are unfamiliar with the many thousands of papers published on comets, dating back many decades. Let alone the many thousand conference presentations. So I rather doubt that you have done any work to go look for references to "dusty plasmas" in comets.

 

[JeanTate]

HNY to you too, Haig.

Hey JeanTate, you don't get it do you ?

Actually, it is rather you who missed my point.

You see, one way to read my post was as a critique of your methods. Specifically, an indirect way of saying that you appear to do no critical thinking, that what you post is mostly link spam.

This response of yours rather confirms my critique, wouldn't you say?

I mean, one of your sources has an astonishing claim, a claim which can be tested rather easily. I did such a test, and it seems Mathis' "MATH" is inconsistent with the reality of my sting, pin, and leads. Another of your sources is strong on the importance of direct evidence. Your two sources are in conflict, yet you seem to feel there's no problem with continuing to link spam such sources, and not discuss them.

If one were to say that you are no different from a troll, based on evidence such as this, they'd likely have a strong case, wouldn't you say?

Miles Mathis was for the MATH MATH MATH guys on here

So, you never had any intention of actually discussing anything in the quotes and links?

<link spam snipped>

btw Happy New Year

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, Sol88.

Equations and stuff, with "stuff" being assumptions.

That's the real kicker here, the mainstream assume X and the Electric Universe assumes Y.

<other stuff snipped>

What are "X" and "Y", may I ask?

More accurately, what do you consider "X" and "Y" to be?

If you could, please limit your scope to the ech.

 

[JeanTate]

Hello again, Sol88.

Hello again, Sol88.
(my bold)

As you yourself have chosen to bring up the topic of jets, I think this might be a good time to remind you - and readers in general - that I had asked you about jets some time ago. And that you have yet to address my questions. So I'll repeat them here (source):

Let me ask you about jets, electrical discharge phenomena, and the ECH, OK?

1) How do you get from:
* there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun AND
* comets are homogeneous 'rock'
to:
* the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena?

Would you please walk me through the logical steps from premises to conclusion?

2) What primary source, or sources, can you cite, re "in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena"?

3) Per the ECH, what are the two (or more) 'ends' of the electrical discharge(s) that are comet jets? Or, what acts as electrodes?

I think that will do for now; I look forward to continuing to discuss comet jets in the ECH.

Thanks for reminding me JeanTate.

You're welcome.

Comets are chunks of rock covered in dust. When a combination of factors come into play with their changing electrical enviroment they respond electrically. We see these same process's happen at various power levels on various moons, including our own Lunar, as well as ALL planets in our solar system.

That's it?

That's your complete answer to my 1)?

1) How do you get from:
* there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun AND
* comets are homogeneous 'rock'
to:
* the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena?

Would you please walk me through the logical steps from premises to conclusion?

The ELECTRIC SUN is the main instigator in this process with it's large but weak electric field.

<irrelevant stuff snipped>

but again we digress from the EC.

<irrelevant stuff snipped>

Yes, let's.

How about some answers to my two other questions, 2) and 3)?

2) What primary source, or sources, can you cite, re "in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena"?

3) Per the ECH, what are the two (or more) 'ends' of the electrical discharge(s) that are comet jets? Or, what acts as electrodes?

Despite your obvious ability to understand English, you seem to have failed - rather spectacularly - to understand my 1). So how about I try to rephrase it?

How does there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun and Comets are chunks of rock covered in dust (I've incorporated your non-ech variation) lead to the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena?

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, Haig.

Yes, the JETS from Electric Comet 67P are going to settle things. When is the Rosetta crowd going to show the latest data on the JETS ?

tusenfem, our inside man at ESA, do you know ? Are you allowed to tell us ? Sitting at the edge of my seat here waiting

Still ... some close up pictures of it really are excellent and not at all what a Dirty Snowball comet was supposed to look like and the comet song is kinda catchy ... but Hey! it's all good for an Electric Comet hypothesis

THE Rosetta: Comet 67P/C:G, CLOSE UP! Comet Anomalies




Secrets of High-Power Comet Observing


What's this curious knot feature within a jet ???

tusenfem do you know ? Do you think 67P will display them when it becomes more active ? What's the mainstream explanation for knots in comet jets ?

Sounds very e/m like to me

As you have now started to post on jets and the ech, perhaps you'd like to try to answer the three simple questions I asked Sol88 on this, questions he seems to be having a lot of difficulty with. No "MATH" involved, I promise.

1) How do you get from:
* there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun AND
* comets are homogeneous 'rock' (possibly covered in dust, per Sol88)
to:
* the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena?

Would you please walk me through the logical steps from premises to conclusion?

2) What primary source, or sources, can you cite, re "in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena"?

3) Per the ECH, what are the two (or more) 'ends' of the electrical discharge(s) that are comet jets? Or, what acts as electrodes?

Thanks in advance.

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, Sol88.

Seems that's the problem, you are telling the story as told to you.

And also, not to be snide but have a read up on what the EU say on all your above points, you'd be surprised.

Let's get back to them pesky jets, shall we?

2) What primary source, or sources, can you cite, re "in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena"?

3) Per the ECH, what are the two (or more) 'ends' of the electrical discharge(s) that are comet jets? Or, what acts as electrodes?

 

[Haig]

Good morning Haig.

I responded to your posts on SAFIRE twice, in post #1830 (23rd November 2014), and in post #1837 (same date).

As you did not reply, I assumed you had no interest in SAFIRE.

Would you be so kind as to reply to my two earlier posts, Haig? Then we can continue to discuss SAFIRE (at least as it pertains to the ech).

Don't you know never to assume ! because if you do you make an ass/u/me

Sorry I couldn't resist I was taught that in primary school and it's the only thing I remember

Well JeanTate you did disappoint me but it's no surprise. I had a slim hope that a "citizen scientist" as you claim to be would like to comment on the recent findings of the first of three phases of research known as SAFIRE (Stellar Atmospheric Function in Regulation Experiment)

The SAFIRE Project and JMP®: What Makes Our Sun Shine?

Published on 30 Sep 2014
Why does the surface of the sun operate in the 3,000-4,000 K range, while the solar corona exhibits temperatures in the millions of degrees? How do the known current sheets attach our Earth to the sun? And why are they there? We use JMP software for our study. Read the paper by Paul E. Anderson, Montgomery Childs, and Michael Clarage given at 2014 JMP Discovery Summit.

Oh dear, never mind

 

[Haig]

HNY to you too, Haig.

Actually, it is rather you who missed my point.

You see, one way to read my post was as a critique of your methods. Specifically, an indirect way of saying that you appear to do no critical thinking, that what you post is mostly link spam.

This response of yours rather confirms my critique, wouldn't you say?

I mean, one of your sources has an astonishing claim, a claim which can be tested rather easily. I did such a test, and it seems Mathis' "MATH" is inconsistent with the reality of my sting, pin, and leads. Another of your sources is strong on the importance of direct evidence. Your two sources are in conflict, yet you seem to feel there's no problem with continuing to link spam such sources, and not discuss them.

If one were to say that you are no different from a troll, based on evidence such as this, they'd likely have a strong case, wouldn't you say?


So, you never had any intention of actually discussing anything in the quotes and links?

Well JeanTate, your point is ALL too obvious

So tackling Miles Mathis is beyond you and it was only these three papers, related to the Electric Sun, I was asking for a critique of !

Well JeanTate you did disappoint me yet AGAIN but it's no surprise. I had a slim hope that a "citizen scientist" as you claim to be would like to comment on these papers

Hey JeanTate, you don't get it do you ?

Miles Mathis was for the MATH MATH MATH guys on here

Feel free to knock yourself out on his Electric Sun stuff below (charge is electrical right?)

From my post HERE ...

Originally Posted by Haig
Can you Tom debate Miles Mathis on these ? or can anyone else ?

Don't go for the man (I doubt you can resist) what are the arguments against his math and logic in these three papers.

Miles Mathis isn't in the EU / PC crowd and he certainly isn't in the mainstream, he's kinda unique but in discussions of an Electric Sun and with his focus on "charge" as one of the overlooked factors of an electrical nature should / must be included IMHO

The Cause of the Solar Cycle PDF
Originally Posted by Miles Mathis
It has been known for a long time that the main Solar cycle is about 11 years, but that is just an average. It goes from a minimum of about 9 years up to about 14 years. Although some theories have been presented, the cause of all three numbers is unknown. I will show you the correct answer here.

The reason I so quickly hit on the right answer is that I knew where to look. In my other long paper on Sun cycles (ice ages), I have already shown that Jupiter is the cause of the secondary variance. In this
case we will see that Jupiter is the cause of the primary variance. Upon reading the NASA data, Jupiter is the first place I looked. The NASA writers even give us a hidden clue, though it is doubtful anyone but me tripped over it.
Originally Posted by Miles Mathis
The fact that the alignment of Jupiter/Uranus is determining this maximum in 2012 is what has made it strange and small. In 2012, we finally hit our first peak of the cycle, and that is when Uranus is still near the line, Saturn is near the line, and Neptune is moving toward it again. Although none are strictly aligned with Jupiter, this near alignment of all four planets is about the best we are going to get in this weak cycle.

Saturn is now (late 2014) moving toward 90, so we are moving toward a minimum. But we are not moving very positively toward it even this late in the cycle, since Neptune is going to opposition. This will stretch the peak of cycle 24, pushing it well into 2015. The slope of the graph won't really start to drop strongly until after Neptune moves off the line. This will cause a pretty precipitous drop from 2015 to 2018. In 2018, Saturn will be at about 45, Neptune will at about 90, and Uranus will be at 90. So you can see easily the cause of the minimum there.

Magnetic Reconnection and Coronal Temperatures PDF
Originally Posted by Miles Mathis
At any rate, I have long had a simple mechanical theory for charge effects: it has been part of my unified field for years. But until now I have not connected it to the corona. Even when I wrote a paper on the Sun a couple of years ago, I had nothing much to say about the creation of the coronal energy. But now that I have used the charge field to explain the brightness of planets, moons, and comets—via magnetic interaction—I now have a mechanism for the corona. Some of my readers understood me
immediately, and made the connection before I even got here. They wrote and asked me if the brightness of Enceldaus was linked to the heat of the corona. Rather than just say “yes,” I decided to write this paper for all my readers, making the connection explicit.

In those previous papers on comets and moons, I showed how the spins on the photons could cause the unexplained brightness. We only require photons meeting anti-photons, and charge recycling—along with an ambient field—was able to explain both. In short, all spherical bodies from electrons to
galaxies recycle charge. The spin of the sphere in an ambient field naturally creates field potentials which draw photons in at the poles and emit them most heavily at the equator. This emitted charge then rejoins the ambient field at a boundary, and this rejoining can cause spin cancellations. In the right circumstances, these spin cancellations can cause big effects, and that is what we are seeing with increased brightness. It is also what we are seeing with the corona

The Heliospheric Current Sheet PDF
Originally Posted by Miles Mathis
Ethan Siegel and Xiaoying Xu of the University of Arizona analyzed the distribution of dark matter in our Solar System, and found that the mass of dark matter is 300 times more than that of the galactic halo average, and the density is 16,000 times higher than that of the background dark matter.

You know what, they are right, except for one thing. That isn't dark matter they are calculating, it is charge. There is always going to be more charge in the vicinity of baryonic matter, as we have known for 200 years. Benjamin Franklin put the charge signs on matter, and we still do. We have always defined charge as a relationship of matter, so of course it is going to exist with more density around matter. I have shown why this is: matter recycles charge. Spinning protons, neutrons, and electrons recycle charge photons, and the spins and photons are real. Everything involved has mass, spin, and radius. Nothing is virtual. Nothing comes out of the vacuum or returns into it.

But they pretend not to be able to figure this out. In the new articles, they tell us that there seems to be a mysterious link between dark matter and baryonic matter, since there is more dark matter in the vicinity of baryonic matter. They ask, “How do dark matter and baryonic matter interact?”

According to consensus among cosmologists, dark matter is believed to be composed primarily of a new, not yet characterized, type of subatomic particle. The search for this particle, by a variety of means, is one of the major efforts in particle physics today.

You have to be kidding me. How about the subatomic particle we call the photon? Like dark matter, it doesn't react with E/M fields, and it creates a field that is “transparent.” It is so transparent, we have forgotten all about it, apparently. It has become transparent to our physics.

All this was caused by refusing to assign charge to a real field. Currently, it is mediated by a messenger photon, which is virtual. Imaginary. Therefore, charge currently has no real presence in the field. Which is why, when we come across new evidence indicating the presence of a powerful field of
particles, we forget about charge. “Charge is nothing, just imaginary field potentials, so we need a new field to explain new data!” Perverse.

To see mainstream physicists continue to assign all new things to dark matter is perverse, considering that they already have a field that contains it and explains it, without mystery. Why would they do that? Well, in addition to the ascendance and takeover of science fiction, we have the longstanding fact that physicists do not want to rewrite their field equations again. They had enough trouble adding Relativity to them, and they don't want to add charge, too. It would require too much work (they think). They think they have proof of the gravity-only field (since their equations work pretty well),
and this allows them to keep the field they inherited from Laplace centuries ago. Besides, they just spent decades belittling all the “cranks” who wanted to add charge or E/M to the field. The Velikovsky affair is still warm in some places, and to admit Velikovsky was even partially right about anything is
too painful for them. So it is easier to hide and misdirect than to look directly at the evidence in front of them.

However, I have done the work for them, and it turns out they can keep a lot of their old prize equations. The revolution will turn out to be a lot less messy than they have thought. It is far simpler than anyone imagined, because their old fields already contained charge. They just didn't know it. The charge field is already inside Newton's gravity field, in the constant G. And since General Relativity was just the addition of transforms to Newton, Einstein's equations already contain charge as well. And charge is already inside the Lagrangian, too, as I have shown.

That's right. The unified field was hiding in plain sight, too. It has been hiding inside G for centuries. Because it was already in the Newtonian field equations, we don't have to rewrite anything. We just have to re-expand and re-interpret what we already had.

Oh dear, never mind

 

[Haig]

Good morning again, Haig.

As you have now started to post on jets and the ech, perhaps you'd like to try to answer the three simple questions I asked Sol88 on this, questions he seems to be having a lot of difficulty with. No "MATH" involved, I promise.

1) How do you get from:
* there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun AND
* comets are homogeneous 'rock' (possibly covered in dust, per Sol88)
to:
* the observed comet jets are an electrical discharge phenomena?

Would you please walk me through the logical steps from premises to conclusion?

2) What primary source, or sources, can you cite, re "in the ECH jets are an electrical discharge phenomena"?

3) Per the ECH, what are the two (or more) 'ends' of the electrical discharge(s) that are comet jets? Or, what acts as electrodes?

Thanks in advance.

Not until YOU answer my posts above.

Failing that response ... your arguments are NOT worth bothering with imho and can go your merry way, bye bye

 

[JeanTate]

Good morning again, Haig.

Don't you know never to assume ! because if you do you make an ass/u/me

Sorry I couldn't resist I was taught that in primary school and it's the only thing I remember

Well JeanTate you did disappoint me but it's no surprise. I had a slim hope that a "citizen scientist" as you claim to be would like to comment on the recent findings of the first of three phases of research known as SAFIRE (Stellar Atmospheric Function in Regulation Experiment)

The SAFIRE Project and JMP®: What Makes Our Sun Shine?


Oh dear, never mind

Yes, you're right; I should not assume.

Haig, before I comment, may I ask, did you read the PDF? Did you watch the video?

Assuming that you did (I am just being cautious, I don't doubt that you did):

What key questions occurred to you?

How accurate did you find the intro/background to be?

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks for taking the trouble to respond, Haig.

Well JeanTate, your point is ALL too obvious

So tackling Miles Mathis is beyond you and it was only these three papers, related to the Electric Sun, I was asking for a critique of !

Actually, if you read what you originally wrote, I think you'll see that that's not true.

Well JeanTate you did disappoint me yet AGAIN but it's no surprise. I had a slim hope that a "citizen scientist" as you claim to be would like to comment on these papers


Oh dear, never mind

Hmm ... nothing in any of that material on the ech, Haig, not directly or indirectly. Or at least, not that I could see. But perhaps you have sharper eyes than I have? Would you please point out - explicitly, and clearly - which parts of these three "papers" has direct relevance to the ech?

As others have pointed out - repeatedly - there are already other threads, here in the ISF, on topics such as the electric Sun. If you are interested in discussing them, why not post there?

 

[JeanTate]

Hello again, Haig.

Not until YOU answer my posts above.

Failing that response ... your arguments are NOT worth bothering with imho and can go your merry way, bye bye

Got it.

You do not wish to engage in any discussion of the electric comet hypothesis (ech). Instead, you prefer to link spam this thread with irrelevancies.

Thank you for being so honest.

 

[ferd burfle]

Hey JeanTate no comment on The SAFIRE Project latest ? Don't disappoint me now

The SAFIRE Project and JMP®: What Makes Our Sun Shine?



Links can be found HERE

Well, I had a look at the PDF and only the ignorant would think there's real science being done here. I've used JMP for real-world design of experiments and it's clear that SAFIRE are just using it as lipstick for their pig. DOX is used to better understand and optimize the parameters of a stable process, that is, a process that does not have unknown causes of variability and for which there is a mathematical model, however basic. In particular, DOX is used to discover higher order interactions between the input parameters. It is not used to characterize an unknown or novel process, which is how SAFIRE presents the phenomena demonstrated by their apparatus. I suspect that real plasma physicists could accurately predict what SAFIRE could have expected from their setup, that is if they didn't hide the details of their anode/cathode configuration by claiming it's "proprietary"; see top of page 3. (Really? What are they going to do, patent it and market it?)

More JMP: in figure 3 they show results of a regression analysis. The input (x-axis) is "predicted anode voltage" and the output (y-axis) is actual (measured) anode voltage. Within unstated measurement error, predicted and actual seem to be the same. I suspect this is a trivial, perhaps meaningless relationship but I'll gladly retract this based on input to the contrary from a professional. JMP can easily produce an equation for the regression line; why is that not shown?

I also watched the Monty Childs SAFIRE videos and here are a couple of bits I think are significant. In part 1,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiIR6QOLPo4&spfreload=10, he dismisses the entire standard model of solar luminosity in a couple of sentences, saying it's "too complicated" and "untestable"; see from about 10:05 to 10:50. It reminds me of Saglieri's criticism of Mozart's music in the movie Mozart: "It has too many notes".

Second bit from part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpYDPdobASI&spfreload=10. From about 20:10 to 21:10 is the most outrageous example of LLAB (Looks Like A Bunny) "physics" I've seen yet from the Electric Everything crowd. A photo of a laboratory plasma from Birkeland is juxtaposed with a photo of Saturn and it's rings, implying that Saturn's rings are a plasma phenomenon. Let's all just pretend the findings of the Cassini mission don't exist.

Yes, Haig, real science can be complicated and certainly astrophysics requires mathematics if you want to make a meaningful contribution. One of your recurring conceits is that our standard models are based on math and not observation and experiment. In real-world science, math and experiment are an iterative cycle of prediction, measurement and correction, leading to improved predictions. You persist in characterizing the corrections as weakness so you can pose the same god-of-the-gaps false dichotomy used by creationists. "Your theory doesn't explain all observations perfectly so our unevidenced assertions must be correct". In fact the real reason EU/ES/ECH proponents, paladin17 excepted, refuse to do even simple algebraic back-of-the-envelope math is that math is objective. Rhetoric offers endless opportunity for obfuscation and misdirection; when you present math, you have to put your cards on the table.


Let me predict your response, Haig: more link spamming. Feel free to instead provide something substantive.

ferd

ETA: Apologies to all for pursuing issues that are off-topic. Haig, if you do reply, please do so in an appropriate thread and just direct me there from this thread--thanks.

 

[Haig]

Well, I had a look at the PDF and only the ignorant would think there's real science being done here. I've used JMP for real-world design of experiments and it's clear that SAFIRE are just using it as lipstick for their pig. DOX is used to better understand and optimize the parameters of a stable process, that is, a process that does not have unknown causes of variability and for which there is a mathematical model, however basic. In particular, DOX is used to discover higher order interactions between the input parameters. It is not used to characterize an unknown or novel process, which is how SAFIRE presents the phenomena demonstrated by their apparatus. I suspect that real plasma physicists could accurately predict what SAFIRE could have expected from their setup, that is if they didn't hide the details of their anode/cathode configuration by claiming it's "proprietary"; see top of page 3. (Really? What are they going to do, patent it and market it?)

More JMP: in figure 3 they show results of a regression analysis. The input (x-axis) is "predicted anode voltage" and the output (y-axis) is actual (measured) anode voltage. Within unstated measurement error, predicted and actual seem to be the same. I suspect this is a trivial, perhaps meaningless relationship but I'll gladly retract this based on input to the contrary from a professional. JMP can easily produce an equation for the regression line; why is that not shown?

I also watched the Monty Childs SAFIRE videos and here are a couple of bits I think are significant. In part 1,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiIR6QOLPo4&spfreload=10, he dismisses the entire standard model of solar luminosity in a couple of sentences, saying it's "too complicated" and "untestable"; see from about 10:05 to 10:50. It reminds me of Saglieri's criticism of Mozart's music in the movie Mozart: "It has too many notes".

Second bit from part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpYDPdobASI&spfreload=10. From about 20:10 to 21:10 is the most outrageous example of LLAB (Looks Like A Bunny) "physics" I've seen yet from the Electric Everything crowd. A photo of a laboratory plasma from Birkeland is juxtaposed with a photo of Saturn and it's rings, implying that Saturn's rings are a plasma phenomenon. Let's all just pretend the findings of the Cassini mission don't exist.

Yes, Haig, real science can be complicated and certainly astrophysics requires mathematics if you want to make a meaningful contribution. One of your recurring conceits is that our standard models are based on math and not observation and experiment. In real-world science, math and experiment are an iterative cycle of prediction, measurement and correction, leading to improved predictions. You persist in characterizing the corrections as weakness so you can pose the same god-of-the-gaps false dichotomy used by creationists. "Your theory doesn't explain all observations perfectly so our unevidenced assertions must be correct". In fact the real reason EU/ES/ECH proponents, paladin17 excepted, refuse to do even simple algebraic back-of-the-envelope math is that math is objective. Rhetoric offers endless opportunity for obfuscation and misdirection; when you present math, you have to put your cards on the table.


Let me predict your response, Haig: more link spamming. Feel free to instead provide something substantive.

ferd

ETA: Apologies to all for pursuing issues that are off-topic. Haig, if you do reply, please do so in an appropriate thread and just direct me there from this thread--thanks.

No need to apologise ferd Electric Comets need an Electric Sun

So it's ok to discuss The SAFIRE Project on the Electric Sun a bit

Thank you sincerely for expressing your view on it : "only the ignorant , as lipstick for their pig, this is a trivial, perhaps meaningless relationship, the most outrageous example of LLAB (Looks Like A Bunny) "physics" I've seen yet," Yes your choice of language is most telling but a lot milder than I expected .... Ah! progress

So, obviously, ... "testing revealed structurally similar discharges on the anode that were very similar to the sun’s plasma (Figure 9). Double layers, caused by charge (+/-) separation in plasmas, which produce granules and cellular layers in plasmas, were visually and/or qualitatively observed near the surface of the anode. The sun too exhibits extensive charge separation, temperature changes, and granulation as a function of distance from the core. The sun exhibits coronal ejections; the anode exhibited eruptions at regular intervals. The sun goes through emission solar cycles; the anode exhibited regular pulses despite a fully regulated DC input and clean power supply. The sun possesses a higher coronal temperature at a farther distance from the core as gauged by spectroscopy; our SBJ assembly possesses an increase temperature farther from the anode as gauged from emission spectroscopy. The trihydrogen cation (H3+) is the most abundant molecule in the universe; H3+ was detected at high percentage levels with the mass spectrometer in our experiment. 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." ... just didn't impress you one little bit. Well this is only the first of three phases of research known as SAFIRE so maybe the team can gain your approval in the future ? Am I being too optimistic here ? or have you already made your mind up ?

How about giving your critique of this ferd ? It's on the Electric Sun driven and affected by charge ...

The Cause of the Solar Cycle PDF

I will pause to confirm that my theory of charge influence is completely physical, and has nothing to do with paranormal or mystical causes. In fact, it is much more mechanical than what normally passes for physics these days. It is known that celestial bodies have prominent E/M fields, and the charge field simply underlies and causes these E/M fields, just as it does at the quantum level and in Maxwell's equations. What the mainstream doesn't understand is that the local magnetism of Jupiter, say, doesn't have to travel from there to the Sun in order to cause the Solar magnetic responses and cycles. So what we are seeing isn't strictly a magnetic transference through space. What we are seeing is a charge transference through space which then causes a magnetic reaction on the Sun. What is traveling between the bodies is real photons with real field densities and real spins. These photons can then cause various E/M effects once they hit large bodies that are composed of ions or ion fields.

But back to the problem at hand. That passing mention of Jupiter finally jogged something in my head, and it was so simple it made me laugh. What is the orbital period of Jupiter? 11.862 years. Ho-ho!

So why isn't the Solar cycle exactly 11.862 years? Because Jupiter isn't the only cause. To calculate the cycle in any given year, we have to track all four of the Jovians (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune). Basically, when the charge fields of Jupiter and Saturn are in line, we get a maximum (of some kind). When Jupiter and Saturn are at 90 degrees, we should get a minimum. The full maximum would be when all four Jovians are in line with the Sun.

Do we have any other evidence for this? We do. The great conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn take place every 18-20 years. If we return to the NASA paper, we find

This process, from migratory start to finish at the equator [of the Sun] takes 19 years on average, but is seen to vary from 16 to about 21 years.

We have a match: an average of 19 years in both places.

I have to imagine someone has seen these number matches and proposed an influence from Jupiter and Saturn. But they probably got bogged down in the field mechanics pretty quickly and couldn't make it work. They therefore gave up or tried more esoteric solutions. But if you have my unified field equations, you find the calculations are all well-oiled from the beginning. We will find no sticky spots

Some background on the effects our variable electric star has on Earth ...

Solar Flares, Weather Alert | S0 News January 3, 2015

 

[JeanTate]

Last one for today, Haig.

One problem I have with the EC/U idea is that it has no predictive power. There is no model. I see a lot of "well it looks like X to me" and that seems to be taken as gospel.

Don't think you are really trying to see it !

Below is a collection of predictions based on Electric Universe principles, which have been confirmed by observations and data click HERE

<stuff not relevant to the ech snipped>

The top two links in that webpage are titled "Comets: Deep Impact ", and "Comets: Stardust". Both apparently directly relevant to the ech.

First, though, Vermonter explicitly tied "predictive power" to "model", and you (Haig) made a category error in conflating this with "predictions". Per electrical theorist David Talbott, there is no electric comet theory, no electric comet model; instead, there is only an electric comet hypothesis (ech).

To the so-called predictions, the ones directly relevant to the ech.

Reality Check has addressed all these, many times, in many threads; as far as I know no one has responded to his analyses. Certainly, neither you nor Sol88 has posted anything substantive to challenge his conclusions (e.g. that most are lies).

This post of mine, however, is not about the so-called predictions per se; rather it's about how one can - objectively, and in an independently verifiable manner - derive them from first ech principles.

With the exception of the first one ("Missing water Thornhill: An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the "dirty snowball" hypothesis) is unlikely.") - which is easily derivable from the ech assumption that comets are homogeneous rock (perhaps covered with dust) - I cannot see how to derive the stated predictions from
* comets are homogeneous rock (perhaps covered with dust) AND
* there is an electric field centered approximately on the Sun

Perhaps you, Haig, can?

Here are just a couple to get you started (obviously, I'd be delighted if you could provide a detailed, objective, derivation for any of the others):

Advance flash
Thornhill: Electrical interactions with Deep Impact may be slight, but they should be measurable if NASA will look for them. They would likely be similar to those of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 prior to striking Jupiter's atmosphere: The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact.

[...]


Comets: Stardust

Subsurface composition
Thornhill: Comets are the result of electrical discharge machining of planetary bodies that occurs in the catastrophic evolution of planetary orbits. It is far too simplistic to assume that the planets were formed along with the Sun and remained in their present orbits ever since.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Let me predict your response, Haig: more link spamming. Feel free to instead provide something substantive.

You were right.