|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
14th December 2014, 03:32 PM | #2841 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
|
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
14th December 2014, 03:36 PM | #2842 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
Haig, are you going to ever answer my straight questions ?
|
14th December 2014, 03:38 PM | #2843 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
I have a feeling that we are going to see lots of idiotic comments on the Thunderbolts web site from electric comet proponents after the end of the converafernce, Sol88. Which you and Haig will probably blindly parrot here. They will
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
14th December 2014, 03:41 PM | #2844 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
Reality Check please answer the question after reading this paper
Quote:
|
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
14th December 2014, 03:45 PM | #2845 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
And the response to my post is to question my intelligence, Sol88 !
Read what you wrote The insult to the scientists is "make up": Trusting a scientific theory such as the comet model without credible evidence is not what competent scientist (or rational people for that matter!) do. The insult to the science is "male bovine excrement". |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
14th December 2014, 03:46 PM | #2846 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Soll88, Please read what you quote:
Please read Surface Charging on Airless Bodies
Quote:
No one knows whether this relatively new analysis (2007) may or may not apply to comets. There are hints - the ice and dust "dunes" on 67P suggest some form of ice and dust movement. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
14th December 2014, 04:52 PM | #2847 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
Trusting a scientific theory such as the comet model without credible evidence is not what competent scientist (or rational people for that matter!) do, so mainstream just make it up to save prior theory...whooboy!
Oort Cloud, Dusty rind over an icy core, sublimating ice, leftovers from the formation of the solar system...etc etc and you want to talk about made up, ok. |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
14th December 2014, 04:59 PM | #2848 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
and how this applies to the standard mainstream theory of asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objects !
but not comets, Reality Check? Why not? Is it because you have trouble formulating your own ideas? You need to have them presented to you in full by "mainstream" scientists? I fail to understand your thinking as much as I fail to understand why mainstream are so reluctant to embrace EM as the dominate force in the Universe...
Quote:
|
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
14th December 2014, 05:12 PM | #2849 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
|
Gezz Belz, what straight question? This thread has gone nuts with RC spamming the board !
Maybe you should ask him? Lots of answers here about the Electric Comet hypothesis It's ALL about evidence ... and here ... Rosetta Mission Update | The Rocky Comet
Quote:
|
14th December 2014, 05:15 PM | #2850 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Wow - way still not to understand what you read Sol88 !
Of course Surface Charging on Airless Bodies applies to asteroids, moons, Mercury, and other airless, rocky objects that is what the abstract states. But comets are not asteroids, moons or Mercury - they are not rocks ! Thus no one knows whether this relatively new analysis (2007) may or may not apply to comets. There are hints - the ice and dust "dunes" on 67P suggest some form of ice and dust movement. But that could be as simple as ice and dust falling "downhill" in the gravity of the comet. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
14th December 2014, 05:16 PM | #2851 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
|
|
14th December 2014, 05:22 PM | #2852 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
14th December 2014, 05:38 PM | #2853 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Apparently you are content to parrot Thunderbolts ignorance and delusions, Haig.
Rosetta shows that the water on comet comes from the comet, not the solar wind since the D/H ratio is not that of the solar wind (one of the electric comet fantasies is that the solar wind creates the observed water). A wide range of D/H ratios falsifies the electric comet delusion so far that comets are blasted from the surface of planets/moons! |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
14th December 2014, 05:44 PM | #2854 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
14th December 2014, 05:44 PM | #2855 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
14th December 2014, 05:48 PM | #2856 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
14th December 2014, 05:54 PM | #2858 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Outstanding questions about electric comet origins
9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Why are the orbits of comets not traced back to planets or moons?
Note that "wishful thinking about electricity" is not an answer! 9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: Why is the total mass of comets greater to or comparable to that of the rocky planets and moons (which still exist!)? 9 December 2014 David Talbott, Sol88 or Haig: What is the physical evidence of appreciable parts of the surfaces of planets and moons being removed in recent (say Neolithic or Early Bronze Age) times? |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
14th December 2014, 07:10 PM | #2859 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
Ahh you are a tricky bugger RC, when you said wind I thought as the wind here on good 'ol Earth but you meant the ELECTRIC COMET's ION WIND
Quote:
|
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
14th December 2014, 07:39 PM | #2860 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
|
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
14th December 2014, 07:47 PM | #2861 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
That is a fantasy about the ELECTRIC COMET and ignorance about ion winds, Sol88 .
Ion wind is science. They are induced from "corona discharge arising at the tips of some sharp conductors" and what have we not detected at 67P, discharge - any electrical discharges from anywhere The invalid electric comet idea is based on fantasy, delusions and a few lies, not science. Electric comets still do not exist ! . Which reminds me to add the latest evidence against the electric comet idea (thank you Haig ) Sol88: List of outstanding questions |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
14th December 2014, 08:25 PM | #2863 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
14th December 2014, 11:29 PM | #2864 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
Now LSSBB this is what "Ice Dunes" were originally used
Quote:
My question was not whether ice dunes form anywhere in the universe but specifically on comets! On Earth they are caused by wind, but on a comet??????? Before you start slinging turds like a chimp, get your facts straight! LSSBB, are there "Ice Dunes" on any comet? not on Earth or elsewhere in the universe but on a comet, specifically 67P? |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
14th December 2014, 11:32 PM | #2865 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
ice ice ice, but none to be found
but comets have icy cliffs and ice dunes! |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
14th December 2014, 11:36 PM | #2866 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
I imagine pink unicorns having a dance party on a comet but kind find any evidence for them does that mean their not there?
Sounds like mainstream imagining ice on/in a comet, they imagined so hard they can't believe the data coming back saying no ICE. so your saying mainstream uses their imagination? Seems that's all they've got. |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
14th December 2014, 11:39 PM | #2867 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,273
|
Are the mods closing this thread??
Oh I see, people getn bit touchy. Righto I guess me be ad homed is ok. No worries people always get a bit touchy when hittn close to a nerve. So I guess no more posts until AGU papers are released. |
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator |
|
15th December 2014, 01:59 AM | #2868 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
|
In my own words ??? now don't you go all JT on me . I'll use any words or papers/articles I choose to get the idea or point across.
So ... How do rocky comets relate to the EU theory ? First the words of the NASA article where it started ... Embers from a Rock Comet
Quote:
Quote:
So THEY compare it to a regular comet RIGHT? However, there is a problem ... Rock Comet Meteor Shower
Quote:
Given the above the Thunderbolts guys are entitled (imho) to say ...
Originally Posted by Thunderbolts
Quote:
Quote:
Given that the mainstream on this thread has denied that Electric Comets can be ROCK I think it's hilarious to consider Rock comets from NASA You see the Electric Comets hypothesis , briefly as I understand it, says that the comets nucleus is a charged object moving in a eccentric path around the Electric Sun ploughing though it's weak electric field. Sure the Sun has an electric field ... what else could be accelerating the solar wind to over a million miles and hour out past the planets? eh? Tom / tusenfem ??? The only thing I know can hurl vast quantities of charged matter AWAY from the STRONGEST gravity source in our solar system IS an electric field. eh? Tom / tusenfem ??? What ELSE could do it ?? explosive force doesn't cut it ! the stuff is ACCELERATING away ... it doesn't slow down !!! So this charged comet nucleus moving through the electrified dusty real plasma that is the Suns solar wind forms a plasma sheath, as do ALL the planets being charged bodies too. But the electrical stress can't be dealt with quickly enough as the electric field of the Sun gets stronger the closer it approaches and the plasma sheath enters glow mode making the Electric Comets so called "coma and tail" unlike the charged planets dark mode plasma sheaths. BTW did you know Venus plasma sheath (in dark mode) is over 45 million kilometres long and almost touches the Earths plasma sheath (mainstream call it the Magnetosphere) So bringing this back to "How do rocky comets relate to the EU theory ?" it should be fairly obvious by now How much of a charge does the Rock comet or Electric comet have in relation to the Suns electrical environment at the time determines the size and intensity of the coma and tail (plasma sheath) and as we have seen from Electric Comet Holmes 17P this electric environment of the Sun can change even as the charged bodies move away from the strongest electric field due to a large spike in the density of the solar wind on October 22 two days before the amazing reaction by Electric Comet Holmes 17P. Thornhill suggested that:
Quote:
Quote:
How these Rock comets and Electric Comets become charged is less important imho. Electric Comets spend most of their time far far away from the stronger electric field closer to our variable star the Sun (here and here) and in a much much weaker electrical environment and acquire the charge difference there. There are other mechanisms known for bodies to become charged ... - Charging by Electrostatic Induction - On The Electrostatic Charging Of The Cometary Nucleus PDF - Surface Charging on Airless Bodies I could go on but I'd better not bore you any further and I suspect you don't accept my view ... I can live with that But you should be in NO doubt WHY ........ rock comets relate to the EU theory |
15th December 2014, 02:22 AM | #2869 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
|
|
15th December 2014, 02:23 AM | #2870 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
So, where does this bring us now?
I think it might be a good idea to actually start a thread which discusses the actual mainstream model of comets, with all the "geo"logical and plasma physical processes that can take place. The fact that we may not understand everything in the mainstream model is only to be expected, because we have only in-situ data from a few comets (Halley. Giacobini-Zinner, Grigg-Skjellerup, Wild, Churyumov-Gerasimenko). However, our models are developing constantly, especially now that we are "in orbit" around a comet and we get to see the development from very weakly active at arrival, to highly active as it comes closer and closer to the sun. However, the fallacy of the EC proponent that "if mainstream cannot explain X then X is proof for the EC hypothesis" is clear, X can only be proof, if there is an actual model behind the hypothesis that can actually show how X is a proof. Up to now, I would say, the EC proponents have not shown any model, only seem to use pictures in order to show their model. haig was very taken with the reddit (appropriate name) produced "real colour picture" of CG, however, now the experts of the OSIRIS cam have done the job without stretching colours etc. Now, the EC seems to claim the production of water through EDM, or through implantation of protons in the surface, or .. or ... It depends on which EC proponent you ask what model is given. However, many of these can easily be described and quantified, but nobody seems to take the effort to do that, and when a mainstreamer then does the calculations (e.g. water production or electric sun powering) the comments fly around about what is supposedly wrong, but no alternative is presented in a qualitative let alone quantitative way. Plasma physics is a very well developed area of physics, based on Maxwell's theories, learning from "renegades" like Birkeland and Alfven, learning from laboratory experiments, from spaceborne experiments etc. All observations show that plasma physics is very very good at describing all kinds of plasmas. However, plasma physics is not easy and is full of "paradoxes", for example a charged particle in a perpendicular magnetic and electric field will move ... perpendicular to both the magnetic and the electric field. This means that quoting an old speech by Alfven where he "rejects" the idea of frozen in fields or the "first and second" approach (about 30 years ago) does not bring us anything, unless we know what is being done today, but that was already addressed earlier. |
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
15th December 2014, 02:47 AM | #2871 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
|
I asked you to state or give links to the mainstream model of comets and you couldn't / wouldn't do it .... only hand waving ... WHY ? because it's a moving concept heading in the direction of the ELECTRIC COMET hypothesis.
ALL you cited were books (fair enough) but on-line in the 21st centuriy NASA has these as Comet Models ... HERE and HERE I see mainstream are beginning to get the EU / PC idea ... ... apart that is the Supermassive Black Hole's nonsense Extragalactic circuits, transmission lines, and CR particle acceleration
Quote:
That is much more CURRENT that this recent creation video from mainstream ( and you dare to poke fun at EC ES EU / PC hypothesis ) that really makes the point Ambition the film European Space Agency, ESA |
15th December 2014, 03:56 AM | #2872 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
It would've been faster for you to just type "I can't" or "I don't understand it enough to put it into my own words."
Quote:
Your efforts are pathetic. |
15th December 2014, 04:25 AM | #2873 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
|
How about ...
You cant understand what I write / copy / paste ! does that about say it ?
Quote:
Quote:
It's like this ... Electric Comets & Rock Comets ..... needs an ..... Electric Sun ..... needs an ..... Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology |
15th December 2014, 04:37 AM | #2874 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
Sorry haig you are lying, I did point you to where you can find almost everything about the mainstream comet model. Yes "ALL" I did was point out books to you, that is where science can be found, in books and journals: the book by Krishna Swamy "the physics of comets" and the book by Festou, Keller & Weaver "Comets II".
The fact that you cannot be bothered to look at books and rather have youtube vids is not my problem, but do not say that I did not deliver. The fact that you think that the mainstream model is a children's outreach to make their own paper-and-string model from NASA shows the disdain you have for real science. And if you would have paid attention to what I write, you would know that I would not be surprised about circuit theory and currents (although your link has absolutely nothing to do with comets) because I wrote a paper like that myself about flares at black holes. Up to now nothing substantial has come from the EC, not even a clear model on how the EC envisions that water is produced. |
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
15th December 2014, 05:09 AM | #2875 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,042
|
Remember if your can't Google it then it doesn't exist.
|
15th December 2014, 06:23 AM | #2876 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
No, that's your out, there. You can't explain what the hell it means, think it's super-deep and stuff, and expect everyone to agree with you without having to actually make any sense out of it. Explain how they are related, or admit that you have no clue.
Quote:
Quote:
|
15th December 2014, 06:43 AM | #2877 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
Good morning, Sol88. I have a two-part response to your post; this is part one.
I'm not really sure what you mean, but yes, there does seem to be two fairly distinct approaches used in the posts by you, Haig, David Talbott, and paladin17. In very approximate terms: * you and Haig seem unwilling or unable to answer questions about the ech, other than by posting links * you, and to some extent Haig, seem to spend most of your words on asking/demanding/insisting on/etc "mainstream" explanations for comet phenomena apparently picked at random (to some extent both paladin17 and David Talbott have written similar things), or claiming/screaming/etc that some (cherry picked?) phenomenon/event/data is inconsistent with "mainstream" theory/models/explanations/etc. * paladin17 and (to some extent) David Talbott have directly addressed many of the questions asked of them, about the ech (or in paladin17's case, peci), though David Talbott has also ignored many such questions * in particular, both paladin17 and David Talbott have been willing to discuss the content of the ech/peci, on its own merits (again, at least to some extent). As has been repeated said, by almost everyone (including both paladin17 and David Talbott, at times), "disproving" the 'mainstream' model of comets does NOT "prove" the ech!! The ech must stand on its own; it must 'explain' all the relevant data. And that set of explanations is one of two key parts of this thread (the other is explaining what the ech/electric comet model/theory/etc actually is).
Quote:
But what has that got to do with the ech?
Quote:
In the (very) few cases where you or Haig did that, you were thanked, and the discussion also continued, on the ech. However, if you (or anyone else) "brings up something" which you claim is "relevent" [sic], and which no one else understands how it is, then it's quite legitimate to ask you to either explain the relevance (something you seem unwilling or unable to do, rather often) or to ask you to stay focused, right?
Quote:
But what does that have to do with the ech? Can we return to discussion of the ech, please? You started this thread, explicitly on "The Electric Comet theory". Yet you seem to spend much - perhaps most - of your time (as measured in words in your posts) on topics other than the ech. Why is it apparently so hard for you to stay focused? |
15th December 2014, 06:47 AM | #2878 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
|
You need to do more than be SORRY ! How was I lying tusenfem ? I said :
I gave you credit for the books link it was and still is the fact that you don't STATE or GIVE LINKS to the mainstream model of comets. And STILL don't You contradict yourself in the first two sentences of your post. You should apologise ! I never lied and to say so is abuse.
Originally Posted by tusenfem
This is just a bit of fun for me, does it show ?
Originally Posted by tusenfem
Wrong ! You can Google : black holes, dark matter, dark energy and the big bang and NONE of them exist. It seems I've wasted my time with you Belz but it was fun ... does that make me a bad person Calm down put your feet up and enjoy a video about Electric Comets Wal Thornhill: Breaking News | EU Workshop |
15th December 2014, 07:49 AM | #2879 |
Student
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 47
|
Then why all the other planets have different D/H ratios? The 67P's deuterium content is very high (look at the picture), so in this case its orbit should be somewhere around Venus, I suppose?
My sources (like the mentioned data from ACE) tell that there is an electric current. Actual measurements suggest otherwise. Take a rock that is hollow inside and you can get almost any density value you want. That doesn't prove or disprove anything. I cannot agree with you. All the data suggest otherwise (see this, for example). I understand that it is far away from the comets, but please take a look first at why I've mentioned it in the first place, and maybe it will be more clear to you. |
15th December 2014, 08:19 AM | #2880 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
Well sorry, but mainstream physics is not done by youtube (unlike in the EC world).
Here is an "old" review paper on cometary magnetospheres here is a paper about cometary physics and chemistry based on Hyakutake and Hale-Bopp. here a paper by Nick Thomas about Jupiter family comets A paper about dormant comets and their braking up into meteor showers [url=http://esoads.eso.org/abs/1999EP%26S...51.1155G]a review on comets and asteroid statistics Invited Review: Laboratory simulation of the physical processes occurring on and near the surfaces of comet nuclei Review, based on particles and fields observations made aboard the Giotto spacecraft, concerning the nature of the solar wind interaction with comets P/Halley and P/Grigg Skjellerup The "problem" is that the mainstream knowledge about comets is so vast, that it cannot be published in a simple paper, you need loads of papers, better yet, you just take a book in which a knowledgeable scientist summarizes it all or a book in which many authors publish papers on the latest state of their field of specialization (the former would be Krishna Swami, the latter would be Festou et al.) You have not got the foggiest what mainstream physics knows. Well, skim reading links just does not work. And above I explained why there is not just one link to the mainstream model. Well, if that is fun ? I gave you a lot of links up there, so have your fun. Now you are going to show us some real EC stuff? with real links? and real explanations? without youtube? No, I thought not, you cannot deliver what you ask from others. So no this is not fun, it is insulting. |
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|