Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
JeanTate said:
I have a question: has anyone who has been reading the stuff Haig has posted links to (and/or watching/listening to the videos) come across a claim to the effect that Alfven thought the Sun is powered by something other than fusion in its core? That Alfven wrote paper(s) which propose that the Sun is powered by some other mechanism? Sorta thing.

I must admit not being open to this, as I waded through page after page of nonsense in Haig's links; however, his recent posts seem to be clear (as clear as anything he writes): he thinks that there is evidence showing that Alfven's work can be shown to be consistent with some version of "the Sun is powered electrically", or even that Alfven himself found this idea compelling. And I really do not want to wade through the swamp again.

Why bother to find out?

Because it would be a monsterous lie, and would deserve to be exposed as such in the strongest terms.
Click to expand...

in the book " cosmic plasma" alfven talks about rhe unipolar inductor driving a current system through the heliosperic equator into the sun and through the poles out again closing the current system somehow.
as the book is at my offic i cannot look at it right now to give a full description.
however, this was not meant to power the sun but to explain some solar phenomena.
 
Haig said:
We have eyewitness testimony :p
Click to expand...

No, you have the delusional belief that some ancient beliefs are somehow related to stuff that happened in the local solar system environment thousands of years ago. Guess what? You're wrong. May be due to cultural guilt; Australia has an over abundance of fruitcakes when it comes to pseudo-science - maybe they are bending too much the other way in interpreting stuff like a snake falling out of a tree on a mate - which was a huge laugh, and needed to be recorded on a stone for the benefit of the family for many years! Then along comes some eejit white bloke and decides the snake is a Birkeland current.
Seriously, grow up.
 
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/10/27/predictions-for-comet-science-after-rosetta/

“The cathode jets strip and ionize atoms of oxygen from minerals on the comet and accelerate the negative ions away in a fine jet. The oxygen ions then combine with the protons in the solar wind to form the hydroxyl radical, OH, which was mistakenly assumed to be evidence of an ultraviolet breakdown product of water molecules from the comet. Oxygen and hydrogen have both been found in the comet’s coma, by the Rosetta ultraviolet spectrometer.”

Brilliant, Wal. However, WRONG. Why is it surprising that eejits without the qualifications to do this sort of science are the most bellicose when it comes to critcising it?

For clarity, not to mention scientific reality, the ions that are formed close to the nucleus of 67P are actually POSITIVELY charged. That's right, Wal. POSITIVE (See the Alice link that Sol88 so kindly re-linked not long back). Explain that one, you old fraud, you! Not to mention that it is trivial to show, as has already been shown, that there are nowhere near enough protons in the solar wind to create the amount of H20 (or OH) observed. Science wasn't your strong point, was it Wal?
To quote Tom Bridgman: "Some Electric Universe 'theorists' claim the comet is negatively charged, forming water from positive H ions in solar wind combining with negative OH- ions repelled from nucleus. So we should see OH- and water only ahead of comet, between comet and Sun where it is largely formed, at least according to their model.

Yet the OH ion observed is not OH-, but OH+! Not only that, but the OH+ and water are observed in the TAIL of comet, always moving away from the nucleus and away from the Sun! Virtually all ions observed in comet tails are positive ions moving away from the comet! It positive ions are supposed to be attracted to the negative comet nucleus, according to the Electric comet model, then this too is a Major Electric Comet FAIL.

This is not a problem for the standard comet model as the neutral atoms from the comet are predominantly photo-ionized by solar radiation, which tends to liberate electrons, producing positive ions."
Note that Tom wrote this article before the findings of the Alice instrument were reported.

Further gems from the eejit that is Wal Thornhill to come.
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Mmmm maybe it could be in a similar way stuff is ejected from the strongest gravity body around.
Click to expand...

1) Similar to what? When does gravity eject something from a gravity well? Are you talking about a gravitational slingshot?

2) We're talking about a "blast" here, where all the force involved is applied over a very short amount of time and then the object coasts the rest of the way. For a blast to propel something from the surface of Mars into orbit would require an enormous amount of force applied over a very short amount of time, which would shatter the object. If the force was applied continuously over a long amount of time then it could be a lot smaller, and wouldn't (necessarily) shatter the object, but that's not what you're describing.
 
Matthew Cline said:
Haig said:
Mmmm maybe it could be in a similar way stuff is ejected from the strongest gravity body around.
Click to expand...

1) Similar to what? When does gravity eject something from a gravity well? Are you talking about a gravitational slingshot?

2) We're talking about a "blast" here, where all the force involved is applied over a very short amount of time and then the object coasts the rest of the way. For a blast to propel something from the surface of Mars into orbit would require an enormous amount of force applied over a very short amount of time, which would shatter the object. If the force was applied continuously over a long amount of time then it could be a lot smaller, and wouldn't (necessarily) shatter the object, but that's not what you're describing.
Click to expand...
I think he's talking about solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs) or similar solar events. Slightly different environment :D (although in his universe, the Sun is just a big planet with lotsa lightning).
 
Haig: Confirms yet again the base delusion of comets being blasted from rocky planets

Haig said:
Garbage you say
Click to expand...
First you post garbage from the deluded Talbott and Thornhill, Haig :jaw-dropp!
The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos etc.

Then you make the point yet again about how deluded the electric comet idea is:
One of the points of bringing up the electrical scarring on Mars is to show the source of a huge number of Electric Comets blasted off the planet in extreme electrical distress.
Click to expand...
8 June 2015 Haig: Confirms yet again the base delusion of comets being blasted from rocky planets
 
jonesdave116 said:
No, ... snip rant ...
Seriously, grow up.
Click to expand...

Has someone upset you ?

jonesdave116 said:
Are you deliberately stupid Haig, or is there a genetic reason? I posted the link to the idiotic SAFIRE PDF, I told you what line it was on, and I repeat, it reads: Why does the surface of the sun operate at in the
3000-4000°K range,..............

...snip rant...

Understand now? They couldn't find their ar*e with an extra pair of hands. Why should we take anything they say seriously?

p.s. Who needs an apology?
Click to expand...

You need to apologise or take your rant to NASA who ALSO talk about the surface of the Sun :D

Layers of the Sun
the mileage is from the sun's surface
Click to expand...
It reaches from the surface visible at the center of the solar disk to about 250 miles (400 km) above that
Click to expand...
above the solar surface
Click to expand...

Get a grip ! :p

jonesdave116 said:
...snip...
For clarity, not to mention scientific reality, the ions that are formed close to the nucleus of 67P are actually POSITIVELY charged. That's right, Wal. POSITIVE ... snip ...
Click to expand...

Well jonesdave116 don't you know that Ben Franklin labelled "resinous electricity" as negative, and "vitreous electricity" as positive. It was later decided that was wrong and electricity flowed the other way.

So you shouldn't be surprised the Rosetta Team got it wrong ;)

Actually, it turns out they are ALL wrong 'ELECTRICITY MISCONCEPTIONS'

Time to eat humble pie :p

Matthew Cline said:
1) Similar to what? When does gravity eject something from a gravity well? Are you talking about a gravitational slingshot?

2) We're talking about a "blast" here, where all the force involved is applied over a very short amount of time and then the object coasts the rest of the way. For a blast to propel something from the surface of Mars into orbit would require an enormous amount of force applied over a very short amount of time, which would shatter the object. If the force was applied continuously over a long amount of time then it could be a lot smaller, and wouldn't (necessarily) shatter the object, but that's not what you're describing.
Click to expand...

Well grmcdorman sussed the obvious. The Sun blasts matter off it's SURFACE with exploding double layers :eek: Strong stuff that E/M force :D

See now ? ;)

grmcdorman said:
I think he's talking about solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs) or similar solar events. Slightly different environment :D (although in his universe, the Sun is just a big planet with lotsa lightning).
Click to expand...

Eh! you think I think "the Sun is just a big planet" :eek:

Nope, it's a variable electric star :D
 
Sol88 said:
So still sticking to the sublimation?
Click to expand...
Well Duh - that is some basic physics of comets, Sol88.
We are not so stupid as to think that comets are rocks or any of the other delusions in the electric comet idea.
No matter how many times Haig quote mines the internet for the words "rock" in the context of comets, we will not become ignorant about science.
No matter how many times you or Haig link to the Thunderbolts cranks, we will not become ignorant about science.
No matter how many times you or Haig show that you are incapable of understanding fairly basic science (e.g. the measured densities of comets), we will not become ignorant about science.
No mater how many times Haig sticks with the delusion that Mars is a comet, we will not become ignorant that Mars is a planet :p !
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Yes, the Ancients and their records ;)
Click to expand...

You mean mythology. Like I said, you're stuck of figuring out why Zeus turned into a swan to seduce Leda, and a bull to seduce Europa. That's not eyewitness testimony, and we don't need to figure out the reason, because it didn't happen.

Hell, eyewitness testimony directly from the actual eyewitnesses in person isn't even reliable, Haig. And you don't have anything close to that.
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
...Hannes Alfvén
Click to expand...
Wow the argument from outdated (1937) authority via a crank web site rather than trying to understand modern science, Haig :jaw-dropp!

www.plasma-universe.com cites Alfven's work on comet tails, not on a delusion that comets are rocks.

Nice summary of actual comets that is not the delusion that comets are rocks, Haig!
Comet
A comet is a body in the solar system that orbits the Sun. It consists of a nucleus that is perhaps made of rock, dust, and ice, and may exhibits a coma (atmosphere, with associated ionosphere, magnetosphere, sometimes called a plasmasphere), and/or one or more tails: an ion tail (or plasma tail) and dust tail.

In the plasma of the solar wind, and due to the photoelectric effect, the comet nucleus may charge electrostatically, and the ions and dust in the ionosphere and tails produce their own magnetic and electric fields, and electric currents.
Click to expand...


The crank part of www.plasma-universe.com is not the delusion that comets are rocks - it is various delusions about plasma, e.g.
  • Birkeland currents are happen everywhere they imagine then to happen,
  • Peratt's invalid model of galaxy formation,
  • the delusion that galaxy jets have double layers on the scales of light years,
  • the delusion that science is done by comparing images (they compare a plasma image to a nebula:jaw-dropp
 
Haig said:
Well grmcdorman sussed the obvious. The Sun blasts matter off it's SURFACE with exploding double layers :eek: Strong stuff that E/M force :D

See now ? ;)
Click to expand...

No, I don't see how a blast capable of hurling a rock from the surface of Mars into outer space wouldn't also reduce that same rock into rubble.
 
Haig said:
...more Alfven links...
Click to expand...
Wrong Haig - hero worship of Hannes Alfvén is not a good idea when Alfvén would not have been stupid enough to think that comets are rocks :p!

On the origin of comets by Mendis, A.; Alfven, H. (1976) NASA. Goddard Space Flight Center The Study of Comets, Part 2 p 638-662 (SEE N76-21075 11-90)
Physico-chemical processes leading to the dynamic formation and physical evolution of comets are reviewed in relationship to the various theories that propose solar origins, protoplanetary origins, planetary origins and interstellar origins. Evidence points to the origins of comets by the growth and agglomeration of small particles from gas and dust at very low temperatures at undetermined regions in space.
Click to expand...


Before you get excited by On the Relation Between Comets and Meteoroids (PDF), the symposium discussion ends with a question that Alfvén does not reply to: "How could comets, consisting mainly of ice, be formed of meteor particles?"
 
Haig said:
His warnings were right - look at the mess astrophysics is in now with the nonsense of dark matter, dark energy, black holes and a belief in the miracle of the big bang :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...
Oh dear, Haig, you seem to really think that Hannes Alfvén was really stupid :eek:.
Hannes Alfvén was never against observational evidence. If Hannes Alfvén was alive today he would not be ignorant enough to dismiss the modern evidence out of hand of
* Dark matter
* Dark energy
* Black holes
* The Big Bang
He and other people had enough concerns about the Big Bang before the discovery of the CMB to look at other theories that became invalid with more observations..

If you were not in denial of science then you would know how not a mess the Lambda-CDM model is.
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Well jonesdave116 don't you know that Ben Franklin labelled "resinous electricity" as negative, and "vitreous electricity" as positive. It was later decided that was wrong and electricity flowed the other way.

So you shouldn't be surprised the Rosetta Team got it wrong ;)

Actually, it turns out they are ALL wrong 'ELECTRICITY MISCONCEPTIONS'
Click to expand...

Right, so when Thornhill says the ions formed close to the comet are negatively charged, and then turn out to be positive, and caused by photo-dissociation, this is a win for ECH, because positive and negative are essentially interchangable terms?

If you'd even bothered to read that link you provided (and I don't know who the bloke is, or what he's on about, and it isn't peer reviewed, just somebody's view), then you would have seen; "Instead, *all* positive charges in objects and in circuits are created by protons. Removing an electron just reveals the positive charge which was already hidden in the atom." And that is what photo-dissociation does. Removes an electron. Google it. Leaving, yes, you got it, a POSITIVE ion. Which is the opposite of what the numpty Thornhill is saying.
 
Haig said:
Well jonesdave116 don't you know that Ben Franklin labelled "resinous electricity" as negative, and "vitreous electricity" as positive. It was later decided that was wrong and electricity flowed the other way.
Click to expand...
So much wrong, Haig :eek:.
Ben Franklin's labels of charges are correct - the carriers of charges in metals are electrons!
But the direction of conventional current is arbitrarily defined as the same direction as positive charges flow.

You cite a criticism of K-6 textbooks for 11 year old school children :jaw-dropp!
BEN FRANKLIN SHOULD HAVE SAID ELECTRONS ARE POSITIVE? Wrong.
Franklin's labels make it easier to understand a list of 7 misconceptions 11 year old children might get about electricity from K-6 textbooks.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the moderators will allow me this question as it relates to Haig's "Electric comet's are needed because the electric universe is true" line of reasoning.

If so, Haig, would you be so kind as to explain what STOPS nuclear fusion from occuring in the sun given the following well-experimentally known facts?
1 We know the sun is mainly hydrogen with a large amount of helium due to spectral analysis and its weight/volume.
2. We know in great detail how gravity works and how much gravimetric pressure is exerted in the center of the sun
3. We know in great detail how much pressure needs to be applied to hydrogen to get it to undergo nuclear fusion (and have some blown up islands to prove it)
4. We know how much energy a fusion reaction gives.
5. With the previous four points we know how much energy would be produced by the sun if it were powered only by nuclear fusion.
6. The energy coming from the sun conforms what would be expected from 5.

Given all that, for your electric sun to be true (which you claim is needed for electric comets), what mechanisms stop the nuclear fusion in the sun to such an extent that the electrically generated power is exactly the same as the amount we would expect from a fusion only sun?
Is all nuclear fusion stopped? Part?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom