View Single Post
Old 11th November 2018, 05:10 PM   #152
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Originally Posted by JeanTate
This is a timely reminder.

Compare this T&T "Electric Comet" with what Sol88 has been posting these last few weeks: whatever else you might say about T&T's "model", it does have something quite lacking in Sol88's, namely, consistency. Yes, the T&T idea is clearly inconsistent with a wide range of well-established observations ... what can one say about Sol88's "ELECTRIC COMET Theory"?

It's chaotic, incoherent even (ignoring the many spilt words on "Whipple's dirty snowball is RONG!!!").

My attempt to summarize it: comets are "electric" and contain "rock".

Sol88's evidence in support of these two notions is, as far as I can tell, a mix of quote-mining (especially re "rock"), and highly idiosyncratic (and, I might add, creative) interpretations of (fairly standard) plasma physics/space physics (check out his posts on "double layers", for example).
Spot on

Comet are ROCK and they're electrical in nature (Kinetic plasma process DOMINATE).

Well done.
That's ... amazing!

In one short post you disavow the T&T Electric Comet model, and confirm that whatever it is you are doing, it is not science.

In other news: oodles of physics and medical research confirms that Sol88 is ROCK and is electrical in nature (Kinetic plasma process DOMINATE).

Who'd'a thunk it?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top