The Electric Comet theory

[W.D.Clinger]

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:

...snip...

How many boxes can you guys tick?

It's pretty easy to find examples of those characteristics at the Thunderbolts web site.

 The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,[2]

Example:

Despite the glossy media image, modern science is a mess. When the fundamental concepts are false, technological progress merely provides science with a more efficient means for going backwards. At the same time, government and corporate funding promotes the rampant disease of specialism and fosters politicization of science with the inevitable warring factions and religious fervor.

 Double standards in the application of criticism, [3]

Example:

— cosmologists have been misled by theoretical physicists who don’t understand gravity, which forms the basis of the big bang theory. Imaginary ‘dark matter,’ ‘dark energy,’ and black holes have been added to make models of galaxies and star birth appear to work. When all else fails, mysterious magnetic fields are invoked. The bottom line is that cosmologists presently have no real understanding of the universe;

Why is that an example of double standards? Because, as seen below, Wal Thornhill has himself been misled by a wannabe theoretical physicist (Stephen J Crothers) who thinks he understands gravity better than the theoretical physicists whose ranks he wished to join.

 The making of judgements without full inquiry,[4]

Example:

The Big Bang is, by scientific standards, an execrable hypothesis that defies the principles of physics and common sense. Future historians of science will judge this era insane.

 Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,[5]

Example:

Why does this matter to anyone? Because, Joe Average, not only is it your tax dollars which pay for this outrageous elitist regime, but your children are being slowly brainwashed into believing that some of the most inconceivable theories ever devised by man are now established fact. Take the so-called Big Bang for instance, which for all intents and purposes goes something like "Once upon a time, nothing went BANG!". Whilst that may seem a simplistic summary, it is none-the-less how the Fairy-Tale goes.

 Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,[6]

Example:

Essentially, the big bang has it that everything currently in the universe once occupied a point in space of zero volume and incredible density, and then suddenly it exploded and expanded into what we see today. The parallel with creationism is obvious.

Another example along the same lines:

I submit this comment, coming from a staunch supporter of Fairie Dust [Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories] entities such as Black Holes, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Neutron Stars, is the epitome of hypocrisy.

 Presenting insufficient evidence or proof, [7]

Example:

It allows us to verify that prehistoric mankind cut into solid rock their view of the last spectacular and frightening chapter in the history of the solar system — the capture of Earth by the Sun.

Yes, Wal Thornhill thinks our species was already present on earth when the earth first began to orbit the sun. That's an extraordinary claim. He presents no evidence beyond the petroglyphs themselves — speaking of which, see the example given below of an unsubstantiated counter-claim.

 Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.' [8]

Example:

Entrenched science is constantly bolstered by sensational speculative announcements of “facts.” But wildly imaginative constructs such as "dark matter," "dark energy" and “black holes” are fictitious, not factual. Notwithstanding, pronouncements about the big bang have become a quasi-religious ideology, or scientism.

 Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof, [9]

Example:

Cosmology is in crisis because from the very outset the “big bang” was not science! The big bang invokes a miraculous creation of the universe from nothing. It is a misguided attempt to manufacture a creation story to complement, or compete with, the biblical Genesis story. But real science doesn’t do miracles. There was no contest anyway. The biblical creation story, like those of all other ancient cultures on Earth, has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. To believe so is to misunderstand the ancient meanings of “heaven” and “earth.”

 Making unsubstantiated counter-claims,[10]

Example:

Recent research, published by the authority on the many unique forms of high-energy plasma discharge instabilities, has found that prehistoric astronomers chiselled the most ancient astronomical records into solid rock around the globe.

The Thunderbolts site considers the genitalia of the Tapamveni petroglyph to be one of those "ancient astronomical records".

 Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence,[11]

Example:

The confidence of astrophysicists in their diagnosis of a “supermassive black hole” at the center of the galaxy has been boosted greatly by some brilliant observational work that has allowed the orbits of stars close to galactic center to be determined. Their motion has been used to better estimate the size and massiveness of the assumed “black hole” dwelling there. However, this brings us back to the question of what astrophysicists understand about gravity and mass.

In Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe I argue for the origin of mass and gravity in the electrical nature of matter.

(Because of that last sentence (and what follows it in Thornhill's essay), I have to admit that this counter-claim was based on implausibility rather than plausibility.)

 Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it,[12]

Example:

The so-called “queen” of the sciences, cosmology, is founded upon the myth that the weakest force in the universe—gravity—is responsible for forming and shaping galaxies, stars and planets. But even if this were true, gravity remains unexplained. How it works is a mystery.

Newton gave us a mathematical description of what gravity does. Einstein invoked an unreal geometry to do the same thing. Newton had the sense to “frame no hypotheses” about how gravity worked. Einstein made it impossible to relate cause and effect—which means that the theory of general relativity is not physics! How, precisely, does matter warp empty space? The language is meaningless.

 Tendency to dismiss all evidence, [13]

The Thunderbolts site contains a wealth of articles that ridicule and dismiss all evidence for quite a number of things. Many of those articles are just plain wrong about the evidence. Example:

It is also claimed by the very same "experts" that General Relativity predicts that the Universe is expanding. This is patently false. The mathematically rigorous proof that these "solutions" are nonsense is given below.

Crothers' articles are especially pernicious because general relativity is a difficult subject even for mathematicians and physicists, so laypeople have no realistic hope of evaluating Crothers' claims on their merits. In Crothers' narrative explaining how he did not earn a PhD, he wrote:

Thus, General Relativity does not predict or permit the absurd black hole. Furthermore, for the same fundamental technical reason, General Relativity does not predict or permit the equally absurd expansion of the Universe or the ridiculous Big Bang.

Crothers is wrong.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Well done, W.D.Clinger!

 

[Vermonter]

Well-done indeed!

 

[Haig]

Yes, well done indeed.

Do you or anyone want to be honest enough to tick the boxes for your own side? and give examples

I can't be bothered but don't think they are not there

 

[Dancing David]

Um haig, this is just a side show and unrelated to the fact that the EC theory does not match any data or observations we have available.

Some people make better arguments than others, but considering that the EC theory as presented by the blogs at Thunderbolts if unsubstantiated and contrary to the evidence, does it matter?

Here is the Thunderbolts post about how the Matterhorn was blasted out of the rock and depositied upside down?

This is one of the worst of their blog posts ever:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071228vercorsplateau.htm

But it shows the typical citations of bad facts and made up theories and made up lies about conventional science.

Many of the so-called plutons have “eroded” into shapes that defy orthodox explanation. One example is probably the most famous monolithic structure in the Swiss Alps: The Matterhorn. The Matterhorn is a pyramid-shaped, limestone monolith resting on top of strata that is not consistent with its morphology. In fact, when compared with the overall stratigraphy surrounding it, The Matterhorn is inverted and twisted. It appears to have been wrenched out of the ground, wrung by incredible forces and then thrown back to Earth approximately 500 miles east of where it was originally located. What could create a titanic pyramid of solid rock, toss it like a pebble and then stand it on its head?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Yes, well done indeed.

Do you or anyone want to be honest enough to tick the boxes for your own side? and give examples

I can't be bothered but don't think they are not there

I'm sorry to hear you can't be bothered to support your allegations.

To ease your burden of proof, I suggest you just identify anyone you consider to be on my "own side" who's been spamming nonsense from anti-science blogsites while lacking the technical background required to evaluate that nonsense on its merits. Then I'll gather the supporting evidence for you, provided it actually exists, and we can call them out together.

 

[Haig]

I'm sorry to hear you can't be bothered to support your allegations.

To ease your burden of proof, I suggest you just identify anyone you consider to be on my "own side" who's been spamming nonsense from anti-science blogsites while lacking the technical background required to evaluate that nonsense on its merits. Then I'll gather the supporting evidence for you, provided it actually exists, and we can call them out together.

That's very sporting of you. It's everyone except the nicks Haig and Zeuzzz.

I'll lend you a hand ....... if I can find the time

 

[Haig]

Um haig, this is just a side show and unrelated to the fact that the EC theory does not match any data or observations we have available.

Yes, the posts have drifted way too far off topic but the fact is EU/PC theory does match the data we have available IMO. Electric Comets

Some people make better arguments than others, but considering that the EC theory as presented by the blogs at Thunderbolts if unsubstantiated and contrary to the evidence, does it matter?

True, some are better at it than others. No, I don't agree Thunderbolts are far off the mark. Consider this video, it's OT but how do you explain it from a mainstream point of view?

The Lightning-Scarred Planet Mars -- Part One

Here is the Thunderbolts post about how the Matterhorn was blasted out of the rock and depositied upside down?
This is one of the worst of their blog posts ever:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071228vercorsplateau.htm
But it shows the typical citations of bad facts and made up theories and made up lies about conventional science.

Well DD, thanks for this. I didn't know you were into browsing Thunderbolts

If you've that much time consider these:

David Talbott continues his presentation on Martian mysteries, from the forthcoming DVD, "The Cosmic Thunderbolt," (Episode 2 in the series SYMBOLS OF AN ALIEN SKY).

For a playlist of selections from Episode One see:
 http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1CAB005C3DDFD00B

Additional glimpses from Episode 2:

"The Cosmic Thunderbolt," Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwMDYNRZUKY

"The Cosmic Thunderbolt," Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-46CJ5Pt7U

"Planet of a Thousand Mysteries"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wOogk2LSSw

"When Meteorites Fell from Mars"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEWPVkFaEhY

"The Thunderbolt That Raised Olympus Mons"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DABEeixgxgs

Since this video is part of a much larger presentation of evidence, and all of the evidence is interlinked, it is best to start at the beginning.

 

[Dancing David]

That one blog post or any others ays it all haig, they calim all sort so reasons the mainstream science, in this case geology, is wrong. then they give a bunch of made up stuff to support imaginary claims.

Do you really think that electrical forces blasted the Matterhorn 500 km. ? Do you really think that mainstream geology does note xplain it?

So far there is nothing I have read on Thunderbolts that makes sense in the evidence.

yes, I do read it, and try to understand it, that is the way you can critique, apparently not something you have done for mainstream comet science.

 

[Reality Check]

True, some are better at it than others. No, I don't agree Thunderbolts are far off the mark. Consider this video, it's OT but how do you explain it from a mainstream point of view?

Anyone can "explain" it from a mainstream point oif view: It is a crank who posts on a web site that lies to its readers who has created a series of YouTube videos exposing his deluded ideas.

 

[Haig]

That one blog post or any others ays it all haig, they calim all sort so reasons the mainstream science, in this case geology, is wrong. then they give a bunch of made up stuff to support imaginary claims.

I see what you mean. It's not well put IMO.

Do you really think that electrical forces blasted the Matterhorn 500 km. ? Do you really think that mainstream geology does note xplain it?

Mmmmm I'd need a bit more evidence than I read in that piece. Yes, mainstream geology does have a plausible explanation.

So far there is nothing I have read on Thunderbolts that makes sense in the evidence.

I think that video on the weird Martian geology makes me think mainstream can't explain it's formation easily. Perhaps you do?

yes, I do read it, and try to understand it, that is the way you can critique, apparently not something you have done for mainstream comet science.

Know the enemy! I understand that I do read some mainstream comet science but yes, not as much as I should. Lack of time unfortunately.

I started posting on this thread again because of the re-visit to comet Temple 1 on Valentines day. I've just seen the pictures of the man-made crater and I'm rather surprised by how small it is. I guess I was expecting something better after the huge flash in 2005.

NASA Releases Images of Man-Made Crater on Comet

The Stardust-NExT mission met its goals, which included observing surface features that changed in areas previously seen during the 2005 Deep Impact mission; imaging new terrain; and viewing the crater generated when the 2005 mission propelled an impactor at the comet.

"This mission is 100 percent successful," said Joe Veverka, Stardust-NExT principal investigator of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. "We saw a lot of new things that we didn't expect, and we'll be working hard to figure out what Tempel 1 is trying to tell us."

Several of the images provide tantalizing clues to the result of the Deep Impact mission's collision with Tempel 1.

"We see a crater with a small mound in the center, and it appears that some of the ejecta went up and came right back down," said Pete Schultz of Brown University, Providence, R.I. "This tells us this cometary nucleus is fragile and weak based on how subdued the crater is we see today."

Tempel 1 Impact Site
This pair of images shows the before-and-after comparison of the part of comet Tempel 1 that was hit by the impactor from NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Maryland/Cornell

 

[Haig]

Anyone can "explain" it from a mainstream point oif view: It is a crank who posts on a web site that lies to its readers who has created a series of YouTube videos exposing his deluded ideas.

Care to explain that Mars geology, in the video, from a mainstream point of view RC?

 

[Dancing David]

Care to explain that Mars geology, in the video, from a mainstream point of view RC?

Care to present a reason that Mons Olympus is not a volcano?

Seriously Haig, you pick one thing and you support it.

Like this here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040705olympus-mons.htm

What evidence is there that Mons Olympus is not volcanic in nature?

None other than, where did the ridges come from?

They talk about an anode blister, but guess what no scale, no measurements, no possible way for it to happen. I mean really? A giant steel anode?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/061122omridges.htm

Dendritic ridges

Who says that this poses a problem for geologists, what evidence is there of this claim?

None.

Any mechanisms for the electric discharge, zero.

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/50...C93C4D9A310B9B0DB2FABA8D7D9E2B01E70F2B3269972

http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/ve/20357/npakistan_AST_2005300.jpg

They did not even try to look for mountain ridges with branching structures, I haven't even tried that hard.

 

[Dancing David]

Know the enemy! I understand that I do read some mainstream comet science but yes, not as much as I should. Lack of time unfortunately.

Nope!

Know an argument before you criticize it.

 

[Dancing David]

They did not even try plateau edges at all
http://i.pbase.com/o3/93/329493/1/116811076.PEKMyj73.ArundelBeijingAug09565.jpg

http://earthasart.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/desolat_hires.jpg

http://earthasart.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/himalay_hires.jpg

http://earthasart.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/iran_hires.jpg


In fact I don't think they tried at all Haig

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Comets V: A Useless Hypothesis

Comet Hartley 2 - rock and EDM not dirty iceballs and sublimation

Everything we will find out in the future will question and surprise scientists who still go on about comets being dirty ice balls. Every image will show them as rocks having electrical discharges.

Every image?

NASA Releases Images of Man-Made Crater on Comet

"We see a crater with a small mound in the center, and it appears that some of the ejecta went up and came right back down," said Pete Schultz of Brown University, Providence, R.I. "This tells is this cometary nucleus is fragile and weak based on how subdued the crater is we see today."

Personally, I think "fragile and weak" and "dirty ice ball" go together fairly well. On the other hand, "rocks having electrical discharges" and "fragile and weak" don't go together well at all. So Haig quotes material that proves Haig's quote is wrong. Interesting.

The Thunderbolts / plasma universe & etc. comet pages are stupid and dishonest. They claim successful predictions that were not successful and they claim failures of standard theory that are not failures. Trust them at your own peril. Meanwhile, as I have said before ...

If that's what you think, then the EU is toast already. Comets cannot be "rocks". While comet masses are hard to constrain, they are not so extremely uncertain as to confuse "ice" and "rock". Comet densities are constrained to the range of about 0.3 to 1.5 gm/cm³ in numerous different ways, from dynamic orbit modeling to direct observation. Compare this to the density of water ice, 1.0 gm/cm³, and light "rocks" which range from 2-3 gm/cm³ (coal is the lightest "rock" at 1.1-1.4 gm/cm³; do you propose that comets are made of coal?). The average density of Earth is about 5.5 gm/cm³ due to the presence of heavier elements like iron (7.9 gm/cm³). Nothing with a density as low as 1.5 gm/cm³ can be considered a "rock" in any reasonable sense of the word. Comets are already known not to be rocks. For comet density references, see for instance Sosa & Fernandez, 2009; Richardson, et al., 2007; Weissman & Lowry, 2006.

And where does that leave us in the "comets are rocks" question?
Data favoring "rock": none.
Data favoring "not rock": lots.
Case closed, comets are not rocks.

Also see my earlier posts, all more than a year old ...

Comet Wild 2 & Electric Comets
Comet Jets
Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays

The "electric comet" hypothesis has never produced any line of explanation for any cometary phenomenon that is superior to the standard theory. So whay should anyone pay any attention to such a useless idea anyway?

 

[Haig]

Every image?

That's a post and a site I don't recognise Clearly "every image2 is stretching it a bit

Personally, I think "fragile and weak" and "dirty ice ball" go together fairly well. On the other hand, "rocks having electrical discharges" and "fragile and weak" don't go together well at all. So Haig quotes material that proves Haig's quote is wrong. Interesting.

Not sure what your getting at here I am allowed to look at mainstream sites like NASA, right? It's great btw

I don't expect NASA to promote EU/PC theory just yet

The Thunderbolts / plasma universe & etc. comet pages are stupid and dishonest. They claim successful predictions that were not successful and they claim failures of standard theory that are not failures. Trust them at your own peril. Meanwhile, as I have said before ...

Your entitled to your views but I've found Thunderbolts very honest and the predictions second to none.

Also see my earlier posts, all more than a year old ...

Comet Wild 2 & Electric Comets
Comet Jets
Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays

Thanks for these, I'll read them when i have more time.

The "electric comet" hypothesis has never produced any line of explanation for any cometary phenomenon that is superior to the standard theory. So whay should anyone pay any attention to such a useless idea anyway?

So comets haven't given any surprises to mainstream

27 October 2010
Deep Impact 2

Comment: It is amazing that comets are still thought to be "half ice" after the non-detection of ice on so many comet flybys. The spectroscopic survey is very important. I predict that photo-dissociation will be found totally inadequate to explain the degree and nature of ionization of molecules close to the nucleus. It has been known since the Giotto spacecraft flew through the inner coma of comet Halley that "negative ions occurred with densities 100 times greater than expected, and the discrepancy is still not well understood."

Only a week ago, NASA reported about comet Hartley 2 that, "recent observations of comet Hartley 2 have scientists scratching their heads, while they anticipate a flyby of the small, icy world on Nov. 4. Our observations indicate that cyanide (HCN) released by the comet increased by a factor of five over an eight-day period in September without any increase in dust emissions. We have never seen this kind of activity in a comet before..." This is simply another piece of contrary evidence suggesting that comets are not a homogeneous aggregate of primordial ice and dust.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=nq9zna2m&keywords=comets#dest

 

[Dancing David]

Oh boy more unreferenced and uncited blog posts.

Who the **** said comets are homegenous, some *********** strawman?

 

[Tubbythin]

and the predictions second to none.

Have they made a single quantitative prediction?

 

[Reality Check]

Your entitled to your views but I've found Thunderbolts very honest and the predictions second to none.

Then your views are formed from a position of ignorance or gullibility. You have never understood that Thunderbolts has

• Actually lied to its readers.
• Has a record of very bad predictions that are either (or both)
  • Non-quantitative
  • Wrong

Qualitative predictions are not bad in themselves so long as they are explained in detail. They are a first step towards forming a viable hypothesis. But Thunderbolts qualitative predictions are mostly wrong and they lie about them, e.g. ThunderBolts Deep Impact predictions: Lying about flashes

Also see

• The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
• Another lie from Thornhill on the Thunderbolts web site (about Saturn's poles)

27 October 2010
Deep Impact 2
...snipped link to crank web site...

Nice of you to post another link showing the ignorance of the EC authors .

No one expected the surface of comets to be covered in ice. The comet nuclei are some of the darkest surfaces in the Solar System. The cause is thought to be complex organic compounds on the surface. Scientists expect there to be some ice on the surface of comets since it is possible for outgassed material to return to the surface or for the outgassing to remove patches of theouter layer and expose ice. The only ice detected so far was on the surface of Tempel 1.