The Electric Comet theory

[Ziggurat]

No, not really.

Just trying to show the huge surge of evidence in favour of ...

ELECTRIC COMET = ELECTRIC SUN = ELECTRIC UNIVERSE / PLASMA COSMOLOGY

Given that each of these things has been independently disproven already (I'm sure I'm not unique in this regard, but I've shown fatal flaws in both electric sun and plasma universe ideas with some pretty simple physics), you aren't helping your cause.

Normal service will be resumed but I think I've made my point

And yet, you haven't convinced anyone or addressed any of my criticisms.

Earthquakes and the Solar System

Oh boy.

I don't watch youtube videos for scientific content. It's just not worth the bother, I can't access the important content fast enough. But I did go to that guy's website. Most of his content is "protected" so I can't access it, but he does have a section on chemtrails. And I'm going to hazard a guess that the section doesn't debunk chemtrails.

You've got a real winner of a source there, Haig.

 

[Haig]

If you say so; I'll take your word for it.

Please don't. I don't expect anybody to take my word for any of this.
You should check the facts for yourself, compare expert with expert and form your own opinion. If you don't agree with my view, that's fine too

But please, can we stick to the electric comet in this thread? If you really want to show how those things are all connected, please do so in a different thread, OK?

Nope, I don't agree. Those things I posted are ALL relevant to the Electric Comet in a Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology.

quote "The cosmic theatre has outgrown the Newtonian stage, and we need a larger setting to understand the broader cosmic drama. Instead of a vision of isolated bodies turning gear-like in a vacuum, we need a vision of electrical circuits embedded in a conducting medium whose components drive each other and may be in resonance. We have left the familiar world of solids, liquids and gasses. We have entered a world of plasma, where the rules are different and more complex. We now live in an Electric Universe."

So I may post material as such as I think it applies. Although, maybe not so many posts in one go, that was a one off to make a point

Sorry, I don't have a clue what you're trying to say.

Mmm So I see but it's not that vital.

The Space Heretic (as I call him) was around in the 1950s upsetting the mainstream science of his time. I think there is a reference to it on the Thunderbolts site somewhere in the common misconceptions bit, if I remember correctly.

If it's directly relevant to the electric comet ideas, would you please explain, in some detail? If not, would you please find a thread that it pertinent, and post there?

It is relevant.

One of the heretical ideas, that he confronted the science mainstream with, was the solar system was not always so stable and that forces stronger that gravity acted on the bodies involved. What had caused the instability was some comets (big ones ) During this instability the electromagnetic forces showed themselves with incredible effect.

Back to the electric comet then: can you please provide me with references/links/etc to what you consider to be up-to-date, reliable material on how one can calculate/estimate the difference in electric potential a comet will experience, as it moves along its orbit about the Sun? It doesn't have to be in great detail - a BOTE (back of the envelope) will do - but it does, of course, have to be quantitative. And if you cannot find any such, or do not know of any such, would you please say so?

Thank you in advance.

Sure,

We have a recent example of a comet causing instability with a planet and the resulting contact displayed a tremendous electromagnetic effect. Many measurements were taken and there is also a video of the event.

An Electric Comet in action disturbing the electromagnetic balance of a planet (surrounded by it's plasma sheath) as it ploughs through the electric field of the Sun.

Mars Spacecraft Reveal Comet Flyby Effects on Martian Atmosphere

Data from observations carried out by MAVEN, NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), and a radar instrument on the European Space Agency’s (ESA’s) Mars Express spacecraft have revealed that debris from the comet added a temporary and very strong layer of ions to the ionosphere, the electrically charged layer high above Mars.

MAVEN also was able to directly sample and determine the composition of some of the comet dust in Mars’ atmosphere. Analysis of these samples by the spacecraft’s Neutral Gas and Ion Mass Spectrometer detected eight different types of metal ions, including sodium, magnesium and iron. These are the first direct measurements of the composition of dust from an Oort Cloud comet.

Elsewhere above Mars, a joint U.S. and Italian instrument on Mars Express observed a huge increase in the density of electrons following the comet’s close approach. This instrument, the Mars Advanced Radar for Subsurface and Ionospheric Sounding (MARSIS), saw a huge jump in the electron density in the ionosphere a few hours after the comet rendezvous.

MRO’s Shallow Subsurface Radar (SHARAD) also detected the enhanced ionosphere. Images from the instrument were smeared by the passage of the radar signals through the temporary ion layer created by the comet’s dust. SHARAD scientists used this smearing to determine that the electron density of the ionosphere on the planet’s night side, where the observations were made, was five to 10 times higher than usual.

.

"It lit up really bright in the UV band, Huge increase in electron density... yes, this was a noteworthy event"

INCREDIBLE EXPLOSION ON MARS!!

COMET SIDING SPRING UPDATE. Dr.Fritz Helmut Hemmerich made this video from 1200-meters at Tenerife in the Canary Islands showing Comet Siding Spring immediately after its Mars encounter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Sx3WdyOihH8

Now I know what your going to say "but it does, of course, have to be quantitative"

Let me quote someone who knew a bit about this tricky space plasma ... note my bold

I think it is evident now that in certain respects the first approach to the physics of cosmical plasmas has been a failure. It turns out that in several important cases this approach has not given even a first approximation to truth but led into dead-end streets from which we now have to turn back.

The reason for this is that several of the basic concepts on which the theories are founded, are not applicable to the condition prevailing in cosmos. They are « generally accepted » by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not « understand », how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them. It is now obvious that we have to start a second approach from widely different starting points.

HANNES ALFVÉN Plasma physics, space research and the origin of the solar system Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1970 ... PDF HERE

So you see the problem ... the MATHS isn't up to it yet in the Second approach ... Space plasmas have often a complicated inhomogeneous structure.

tusenfem, Ziggurat and some others (not me ) are doing their best with it

Now here's something to think about ...

Electric comet Siding Spring is only small ... the comet nucleus was determined to be between 400 and 700 meters and Mars has one of the weaker plasma sheaths and YET the effect was spectacular!

What if the close approach was to Earth by a much bigger Electric Comet? How much more dramatic would it have been?

OK, so now your saying that's just speculation the chances of that happening are remote. Well has it happened before to Earth? Was it witnessed?

Symbols of an Alien Sky (Full Documentary)

Here we offer David Talbott's first glimpses of celestial dramas in ancient times. Just a few thousand years ago a gathering of planets hung as towering forms in the ancient sky close to the earth, provoking spectacular electric discharge formations above our forebears.

.

will be fun when we claim that 67p is actually charged, just like the moon, which would actually be expected from mainstream theory.

Still playing catch up

Given that each of these things has been independently disproven already (I'm sure I'm not unique in this regard, but I've shown fatal flaws in both electric sun and plasma universe ideas with some pretty simple physics),

Source? Your fatal flaws are flawed Ziggurat

you aren't helping your cause.

My cause??? I'm just commenting and giving information on a thread about ELECTRIC COMETS

What's your cause?

And yet, you haven't convinced anyone or addressed any of my criticisms.

I think when folk come on to a thread about ELECTRIC COMETS they expect to see some facts about it and then they can make up their own minds. I'm content with simply that

Sure, I've addressed your criticisms you just don't like my answers.

Oh boy.

I don't watch youtube videos for scientific content. It's just not worth the bother, I can't access the important content fast enough. But I did go to that guy's website. Most of his content is "protected" so I can't access it, but he does have a section on chemtrails. And I'm going to hazard a guess that the section doesn't debunk chemtrails.

You've got a real winner of a source there, Haig.

I think you've made a mistake (nothing new there ) None of his normal website content is "protected" . See Suspicious0bservers for his playlists.

He does a lot of good stuff on the Sun - Earth connection plus a daily video

Here is today's video (you might not like it )
Geoengineering, Thick Ice, Spaceweather | S0 News November 26, 2014

He also has a paying membership site which is probably what you were trying to hack into

 

[Belz...]

Please don't. I don't expect anybody to take my word for any of this.

And yet there is no science for any of this.

 

[Ziggurat]

HANNES ALFVÉN Plasma physics, space research and the origin of the solar system Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1970 ... PDF HERE

Yes, yes, I've seen that already. In fact, I quoted from it already. You ignored it. You want to rely on Alfven's authority, except when he acknowledges that the central concept of all the Electric Sun nutjobs is completely wrong, and the sun is powered by fusion.

So you see the problem ... the MATHS isn't up to it yet in the Second approach ... Space plasmas have often a complicated inhomogeneous structure.

... none of which matter to my calculation, for reasons I just explained. "Complicated" structures can't violate basic physics, such as Gauss's law.

tusenfem, Ziggurat and some others (not me ) are doing their best with it

No, I'm not. That's the real kicker here. The flaws are so fundamental that you don't even need plasma physics to discover them, not even MHD. Basic, first-year physics electricity, magnetism, and kinematics are enough. Again, every single simplification and assumption I've made pushes the argument in your favor, and yet it still fails. More complex calculations will not save your pet theory.

Symbols of an Alien Sky (Full Documentary)

Oh dear, not this pathetic Velikovskian crap again.

Source? Your fatal flaws are flawed Ziggurat

Yet you cannot tell me why. You cannot describe a single change or correction that should be made to the calculations.

You're just sticking your fingers in your ears, saying "La! La! La! I can't hear you!"

I think when folk come on to a thread about ELECTRIC COMETS they expect to see some facts about it and then they can make up their own minds.

Which is why I did that calculation about possible sublimation rates. I presented facts. I did the math.

And then you promptly ignored it.

Sure, I've addressed your criticisms you just don't like my answers.

You haven't provided answers. You've provided excuses which make no sense and no difference.

My calculations prove you wrong, and you can't refute them. You merely declare, as a matter of faith, that they must be wrong because they contradict your gospel. But you can't find the mistake. You can't correct the supposedly wrong assumptions. You can't do the calculation the "right" way.

Given your complete lack of ability to calculate anything, given the complete lack of calculations by anyone else in the EU crowd, on what basis can you possibly claim that I'm wrong? You don't even know what your own theory actually says, because you can't quantify anything at all.

I think you've made a mistake (nothing new there ) None of his normal website content is "protected" . See Suspicious0bservers for his playlists.

As I said, I'm not watching a YouTube video. And yes, his website does claim certain material is "protected" when I go to links he provides publicly.

He also has a paying membership site which is probably what you were trying to hack into

Following links he publicly provided counts as hacking? Yeah, no.

 

[JeanTate]

Good evening, Haig,

Please don't. I don't expect anybody to take my word for any of this.
You should check the facts for yourself, compare expert with expert and form your own opinion. If you don't agree with my view, that's fine too
Nope, I don't agree. Those things I posted are ALL relevant to the Electric Comet in a Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology.

quote "The cosmic theatre has outgrown the Newtonian stage, and we need a larger setting to understand the broader cosmic drama. Instead of a vision of isolated bodies turning gear-like in a vacuum, we need a vision of electrical circuits embedded in a conducting medium whose components drive each other and may be in resonance. We have left the familiar world of solids, liquids and gasses. We have entered a world of plasma, where the rules are different and more complex. We now live in an Electric Universe."

So I may post material as such as I think it applies. Although, maybe not so many posts in one go, that was a one off to make a point

Thanks for making the effort.

In light of what you posted later in your post (which I'll respond to in a bit), I'll take a look at this ... but later. If I decide it's not relevant to the electric comet ideas, I'll let you know (and that will be that, from my POV; unless you want to post into a more appropriate thread, I'll say nothing more about this, here in this thread).

Mmm So I see but it's not that vital.

The Space Heretic (as I call him) was around in the 1950s upsetting the mainstream science of his time. I think there is a reference to it on the Thunderbolts site somewhere in the common misconceptions bit, if I remember correctly.

OK, that's that then. If you can't, or won't, clarify what you mean - clearly and unambiguously, without posting links to yet more external material - I'm not going to waste my time trying to figure out what you might mean. As I said earlier, life is too short.

It is relevant.

One of the heretical ideas, that he confronted the science mainstream with, was the solar system was not always so stable and that forces stronger that gravity acted on the bodies involved. What had caused the instability was some comets (big ones ) During this instability the electromagnetic forces showed themselves with incredible effect.

"forces stronger that [sic; "than"?] gravity acted on the bodies involved", "electromagnetic forces" eh?

Where are (quantitative) estimates/calculations/analyses/models/etc published? Ones showing that a) "electromagnetic forces" acted on "the bodies involved", and that b) they were "stronger than gravity"? For avoidance of doubt, I am not interested in anything other than (quantitative) estimates/calculations/analyses/models/etc (but BOTEs are fine).

Now, in light of what you wrote later in your post (which I'll get to in a bit), I'm going to add something quite pertinent here: I will be looking, in the material which you post in reply to my question, for quantitative calculations/estimates/analyses/etc of at least the force of gravity "on the bodies involved". After all, if the claim is "forces stronger that gravity", then that force must have been estimated, right?

Back to the electric comet then: can you please provide me with references/links/etc to what you consider to be up-to-date, reliable material on how one can calculate/estimate the difference in electric potential a comet will experience, as it moves along its orbit about the Sun? It doesn't have to be in great detail - a BOTE (back of the envelope) will do - but it does, of course, have to be quantitative. And if you cannot find any such, or do not know of any such, would you please say so?

Thank you in advance.

Sure,

We have a recent example of a comet causing instability with a planet and the resulting contact displayed a tremendous electromagnetic effect. Many measurements were taken and there is also a video of the event.

An Electric Comet in action disturbing the electromagnetic balance of a planet (surrounded by it's plasma sheath) as it ploughs through the electric field of the Sun.

Mars Spacecraft Reveal Comet Flyby Effects on Martian Atmosphere




.

"It lit up really bright in the UV band, Huge increase in electron density... yes, this was a noteworthy event"

INCREDIBLE EXPLOSION ON MARS!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Sx3WdyOihH8

Now I know what your going to say "but it does, of course, have to be quantitative"

Let me quote someone who knew a bit about this tricky space plasma ... note my bold

HANNES ALFVÉN Plasma physics, space research and the origin of the solar system Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1970 ... PDF HERE

So you see the problem ... the MATHS isn't up to it yet in the Second approach ... Space plasmas have often a complicated inhomogeneous structure
tusenfem, Ziggurat and some others (not me ) are doing their best with it

Now here's something to think about ...

Electric comet Siding Spring is only small ... the comet nucleus was determined to be between 400 and 700 meters and Mars has one of the weaker plasma sheaths and YET the effect was spectacular!

What if the close approach was to Earth by a much bigger Electric Comet? How much more dramatic would it have been?

OK, so now your saying that's just speculation the chances of that happening are remote. Well has it happened before to Earth? Was it witnessed?

Symbols of an Alien Sky (Full Documentary)
.

Sorry Haig, I know you really, truly feel you answered my question/request.

But my take on what you posted is this: "JeanTate, I really did try, but honestly I could find nothing, nothing at all which comes even close to what you're looking for (and after our many interactions, I have come to understand what that involves). Even though I have really zero understanding of the relevant physics - Newtonian, plasma physics, etc - I too was pretty surprised to find that no one - no electric theorist, no one - has actually made any progress at all on estimating electric potential which a comet experiences in its orbit about the Sun, despite nearly all electrical theorists having worked on it, pretty much full-time, for several decades."

To be fair, it's not like your non-answer is new; no proponent of electric comet ideas - in this long thread - has provided any of these kinds of answers. And that's because there really does seem to be nothing on this published, by any electrical theorist (other than, perhaps Juergens), stretching back over a half century now.

This wouldn't be so much of a concern if something new had been proposed, in the electric comet idea; however, right from the very beginning it seems the core is electromagnetism, and plasma physics. Both subjects have been extensively researched, for far longer than a half century. And the number of people like tusenfem working on the application of these to space science and astrophysics vastly exceeds the number of electrical theorists. And those people publish papers, in peer-reviewed journals. And thousands of those papers cite Alfven's work.

You see the disconnect?

If it's just electromagnetism and plasma physics, why is it that electrical theorists have been so spectacularly unsuccessful in producing anything testable, verifiable, falsifiable? When hundreds (thousands?) of scientists like tusenfem have been able to do research resulting in hundreds of papers with material that is testable, verifiable, falsifiable?

It certainly cannot be the difficulties of the subject material (though plasma physics is certainly no walk in the park), so what is it?

.
Still playing catch up

Source? Your fatal flaws are flawed Ziggurat

My cause??? I'm just commenting and giving information on a thread about ELECTRIC COMETS

What's your cause?

I think when folk come on to a thread about ELECTRIC COMETS they expect to see some facts about it and then they can make up their own minds. I'm content with simply that

Sure, I've addressed your criticisms you just don't like my answers.

<snip>

Actually, I didn't "like your answers" either.

And my impression is that no member - at least none who has posted here recently - liked your answers either.

What, do you suppose, is the root cause of your apparent inability to successfully communicate your ideas and logic to anyone else?

 

[Haig]

And yet there is no science for any of this.

Sure there is science in this

Do we have any proof of interplanetary electric currents?

“The magnetic flux ‘ropes’ of the solar wind, entwined about the planet, are indicative of electric currents flowing directly into the planet’s ionosphere. …Any cosmic body which is charged relative to the surrounding plasma has a plasma sheath or magnetosphere. It is a region in which electric current flows and energy is released. The sheath is generally invisible unless the current is strong enough to generate light, such as on the Sun and in the coma and tails of comets.”

Science : Planet's tail of the unexpected

ONE of our neighbouring planets can still pack a few surprises, it seems. Using satellite data, an international team of researchers has found that Venus sports a giant, ion-packed tail that stretches almost far enough to tickle the Earth when the two planets are in line with the Sun.

"I didn't expect to find it," says team member Marcia Neugebauer of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "It's a really strong signal, and there's no doubt it's real."

NASA's Pioneer Venus Orbiter first found the tail in the late 1970s. Around 70 000 kilometres from the planet, the spacecraft detected bursts of hot, energetic ions, or plasma. The tail exists because ions in Venus's upper atmosphere are bombarded by the solar wind, a stream of plasma that blows out from the Sun.

 

[dasmiller]

Sure there is science in this

Do we have any proof of interplanetary electric currents?


Science : Planet's tail of the unexpected

Mainstream science does not dispute that there are electrical effects in space. It disagrees sharply with EU about the extent to which those electrical effects drive other phenomena.

Linking an experimental result that shows a non-zero electric field (or current, or ion density, etc) does not, by itself, provide any support for EU. If you linked an experimental result that showed a field strong enough to, say, cause EDM on comets, then that would be support. But you don't seem to know how strong that field would have to be, and you seem to be hoping that we don't, either.

 

[JeanTate]

Hi Haig,

As you really did try, I think it's only fair that I expand a bit on part of my last post ...

<snip>

Sorry Haig, I know you really, truly feel you answered my question/request.

But my take on what you posted is this: "JeanTate, I really did try, but honestly I could find nothing, nothing at all which comes even close to what you're looking for (and after our many interactions, I have come to understand what that involves). Even though I have really zero understanding of the relevant physics - Newtonian, plasma physics, etc - I too was pretty surprised to find that no one - no electric theorist, no one - has actually made any progress at all on estimating electric potential which a comet experiences in its orbit about the Sun, despite nearly all electrical theorists having worked on it, pretty much full-time, for several decades."

To be fair, it's not like your non-answer is new; no proponent of electric comet ideas - in this long thread - has provided any of these kinds of answers. And that's because there really does seem to be nothing on this published, by any electrical theorist (other than, perhaps Juergens), stretching back over a half century now.

This wouldn't be so much of a concern if something new had been proposed, in the electric comet idea; however, right from the very beginning it seems the core is electromagnetism, and plasma physics. Both subjects have been extensively researched, for far longer than a half century. And the number of people like tusenfem working on the application of these to space science and astrophysics vastly exceeds the number of electrical theorists. And those people publish papers, in peer-reviewed journals. And thousands of those papers cite Alfven's work.

You see the disconnect?

If it's just electromagnetism and plasma physics, why is it that electrical theorists have been so spectacularly unsuccessful in producing anything testable, verifiable, falsifiable? When hundreds (thousands?) of scientists like tusenfem have been able to do research resulting in hundreds of papers with material that is testable, verifiable, falsifiable?

It certainly cannot be the difficulties of the subject material (though plasma physics is certainly no walk in the park), so what is it?

<snip>

You remember we had a brief dialog about SAFIRE (I'll post links to the posts if it would help jog your memory)?

Here's one disconnect: you quote Alfven (and others?) on why space plasmas are really, really tough to model, understand, tame with math(s), etc, etc, etc.

Yet these, um, caveats which you insist so strongly on with respect to not only Ziggurat's BOTE calculations, but also everything any and all space scientists (like tusenfem) has ever published (so it seems). And you insist on this without - I'm 99% sure - you ever having read any of the published papers, much less put the effort in, yourself, to understand the relevant physics.

However, SAFIRE gets your explicit blessing. Fair enough ... except for the fact that you do not seem to have considered that it may not use this "second approach". When I asked you about this, you simply did not bother to reply. I have zero expectation that you'll reply now either, but at least it's worth asking: Haig, can you point to where - explicitly - in the published SAFIRE material (starting with that which you cited earlier in this thread) the project team says it has adopted this "second approach"? And if you can't, why does SAFIRE have your blessing?

 

[JeanTate]

I really could not believe you posted this Haig, after having spent so much time and effort writing the detailed and lengthy post in response to mine ...

Sure there is science in this

Do we have any proof of interplanetary electric currents?


Science : Planet's tail of the unexpected

Can you show - explicitly, by quoting the technical details - that the material in these links uses Alfven's "second approach"?

Can you confirm that you, Haig, personally scrutinized the material, to make sure that it did, indeed, incorporate that second approach?

If you can't - but I'm hoping that you can - aren't you being a tad inconsistent? Or, less charitably, hypocritical?

 

[Belz...]

Sure there is science in this

Nice bait and switch, but I didn't mean no science behind electricity. No science behind EU.

 

[Matthew Cline]

No, I'm not. That's the real kicker here. The flaws are so fundamental that you don't even need plasma physics to discover them, not even MHD. Basic, first-year physics electricity, magnetism, and kinematics are enough. Again, every single simplification and assumption I've made pushes the argument in your favor, and yet it still fails. More complex calculations will not save your pet theory. [underlining added]

Maybe 1) he thinks that it's impossible to tell a priori whether or not a simplification will work for or against a theory, and 2) that this is so obvious that he doesn't need to spell it out.

 

[Sol88]

So, I'm still surprised with the maths thing!

How does your maths explain Comet Siding Springs interaction with Mars?

Mmmmmm...Curiouser and curiouser!

 

[Sol88]

No wonder the Mainstream are more happy to tell the Comets are dirtysnowballs story and not the one our ancestors are trying tell us.

Pretty safe with the mainstream story.

 

[Sol88]

Oh...and I see when faced with some real world MATHS, all the maths proponents run away and hide

So if Io generates 2 Trillion Watts but orbiting inside Jupiter magnetosphere then how much would our moon generate when inside our magnetosphere?

???


Just use E = - v × B ???

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Oh...and I see when faced with some real world MATHS, all the maths proponents run away and hide

So if Io generates 2 Trillion Watts but orbiting inside Jupiter magnetosphere then how much would our moon generate when inside our magnetosphere?

???


Just use E = - v × B ???

Is the moon a conductor? Is the moon orbiting earth a tenth of its usual distance away? Both need to be true for your question to move from the not-even-wrong category.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Oh...and I see when faced with some real world MATHS, all the maths proponents run away and hide

In this case, it would be more accurate to say they shook their heads and walked out sniggering.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

In this case, it would be more accurate to say they shook their heads and walked out sniggering.

Or walked away from the cage containing a poo-flinging monkey.

So I read up a bit on the Io dynamo. Very interesting. Of course, Io is orbiting within Jupiter's magnetic field, so that's different. I need some googleversity time on the subject I guess.

 

[Matthew Cline]

"Symbols of an Alien Sky", huh? According to this page:

An unsolved mystery:

• Why did archaic astronomical traditions always identify their most powerful gods as planets?
• And why did they insist that "Doomsday" occurred when these gods went to war?

David Talbott's film 'Symbols of An Alien Sky' goes far beyond merely identifying "the celestial provocation" of our true history.

Symbols resurrects and confirms the genius of Immanuel Velikovsky [underlining added]. With excruciating attention to detail Talbott rivals the intellectual obsession and integrity of the thousands of ancient chroniclers that are "urging us to remember."

"The genius of Immanuel Velikovsky".

...

*snerk*

Aaaahahahahahaha!!!

 

[Sol88]

Or walked away from the cage containing a poo-flinging monkey.

So I read up a bit on the Io dynamo. Very interesting. Of course, Io is orbiting within Jupiter's magnetic field, so that's different. I need some googleversity time on the subject I guess.

So I read up a bit on the Io dynamo. Very interesting. Of course, Io is orbiting within Jupiter's magnetic field, so that's different.

Wish I had more room on my signature line to put that one on too, go real good next to

I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists somewhat ... (DeiRenDopa)

 

[Sol88]

So I read up a bit on the Io dynamo. Very interesting. Of course, Io is orbiting within Jupiter's magnetic field, so that's different. I need some googleversity time on the subject I guess.

So my point with the whole MATH thing ApolloGnomon, you did not have to do one single sum to understand the theory, did you?