|
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. |
31st July 2020, 10:16 PM | #201 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
|
No no, it is your theory, you explain it.
But, a negatively charged object will accelerate towards a positively charged object. Something every experiment with electricity ever has shown. Especially in a vacuum. So, your EC theory would predict that comets will be drawn towards the sun, in a way gravity alone cannot explain. In fact, given the sheer amount of time in the solar system, the EC would predict there are no old comets in the solar system, as everything would have been sucked into the sun. Yet... we do not see this. At all. So again, reality does not conform with your theory and again EC needs magic. Currently your magical EC fields need to both be so large as to make cometary tails, but be so small that no instrument on any spacecraft ever sees them. And it needs to be magically capable of causing your much vaunted discharges of a single charge, while at the same time not having any effect on the moving charges of the solar wind. And it needs to be both strong enough to encompass the entire solar system, yet at the same time weak enough charges can even leave the sun. And you now need the magic that it is again strong enough to cause cometary tails and weak enough to have no effect on the movement of comets. And if comets are negative it needs to be magically able to allow a negative discharge to move away from the positive pole, rather than towards it. (you do know the tail of a comet points away from the sun right?) Rather than asking if I can explain things for you, wouldn't it be better if you addressed those glaring inconsistencies between observed reality and your farce of a theory? |
2nd August 2020, 01:43 PM | #202 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues
Sol88 lies with "Electric Comets says they are negatively charged with respect to the sun." when his cult's dogma is comets are highly negatively charged. An enormously high charge so that physically impossible thunderbolts tears imaginary rock apart into dust and gas. This is not the few volts that are measured in the coma or the hundreds of volts that are possible for electrostatic charging by the solar wind. It is at least 10,000,000,000 volts (see below) !
Sol88 lies with "How large?" when the charge has to produce 35 gigivolts to turn the measured density of comet 67P into that of rock. That accelerates ions around the comet to speeds high enough to produce obvious and unseen radiation from the acceleration and collision with the comet. Sol88 lies with "it does have a direct bearing on what we are discussing" when we are not discussing his irrelevant mainstream ice and dust cometary science. Sol88 lies with "Can an object charge/discharge in the solar plasma stream?". The mainstream science is that it is physically impossible for comets to discharge at all. Sol88 lies with "Can an object charge/discharge in the solar plasma stream?". Sol88 has cited the mainstream science that comet can theoretically have dust charged by the solar wind to temporarily electrostatically eject a not measured amount of dust. Sol88 lies with "Can an object charge/discharge in the solar plasma stream?" when this is not his cult's delusion of a comet charged to such an enormous level that physically impossible thunderbolts tears imaginary rock apart into dust and gas. W.T."Tom" Bridgman Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy Electric Comets: More Failures of the Electric Comet Model Electric Comets III: Mass vs. Charge
Quote:
Electric Comets: Failures of the Electric Comet Model |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
3rd August 2020, 10:22 PM | #203 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,259
|
I find it interesting how the nice-sounding words completely break down into silliness in a math-free theory.
|
__________________
Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none! |
|
5th August 2020, 06:38 PM | #204 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
Mathamagicians can work there majik, as has been proven time and again here.
Plasma double layers, field aligned currents seems difficult for you to understand because of the lack of maths or because it’s too hard for you? Using maths, can an object exposed to the solar wind charge to the ambient potential, steenkh? Prove me wrong using whatever math blows the wind thru your hair... Maths is not science..... |
__________________
“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 |
|
5th August 2020, 08:31 PM | #205 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues
Sol88 writes "Mathamagicians" nonsense parroting his cult's hatred of math and physics. Math is the language of physics.
Sol88 lies with repeating his answered "charge to the ambient potential" question about mainstream ice and dust cometary science, not his cult's delusions about comets. How Sol88 and Wal Thornhill make the electric comet deluded with EDM Sol88 lies with "Prove me wrong" when no one is saying that mainstream ice and dust cometary science is wrong. Sol88 lies with "Maths is not science" when no one says that maths is science. Mathematics is a fundamental part science as anyone who has read a textbook knows. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th August 2020, 08:33 PM | #206 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
The usual abysmal level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009
]The thousands of lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
The abysmal insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's dogma, etc. (no astronomer believes comets are actual rock) 522 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020 The litany of lies, etc. continues.
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th August 2020, 08:52 PM | #207 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
Mmmmm.... MHD springs to mind.
Mathamagicians at their best! Radial outgassing... maths proved it too! Unfortunately it was wrong, like comets being mostly ice sublimating in the warmth of the Sun. |
__________________
“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 |
|
5th August 2020, 08:55 PM | #208 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“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 |
|
5th August 2020, 09:15 PM | #209 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues
Sol88 lies that MWD was written by his fantasy of "Mathamagicians". MHD is textbook plasma science.
Sol88 lies with "Radial outgassing... maths proved it too". The radial outgassing approximation used in the Haser model was based on the physical fact that in the 1960's we could only see radial outgassing from comets . Sol88 lies with "Unfortunately it was wrong". It was an approximation. Sol88 lies with "like comets being mostly ice sublimating in the warmth of the Sun". Comets are still mostly ice sublimating in the warmth of the Sun. With a few exceptions - Tempel 1 with up to 50% ice, 67P with at least 14% ice. Sol88 lies with his repeated and answered comet dust "attain a charge as per mainstream science" question in a thread about his cult's dead dogma about comets and deluded dogma about stars (turns the Sun into a white dwarf, fries us with gamma rays etc.). |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
6th August 2020, 03:52 AM | #210 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“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 |
|
6th August 2020, 05:03 AM | #211 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
|
6th August 2020, 12:39 PM | #212 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“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 |
|
6th August 2020, 12:53 PM | #213 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
|
6th August 2020, 01:10 PM | #214 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
The electric comet proposes the nucleus is a charged object this is seen in the data.
Meantime everyone here including you is avoiding the question of wether oBjects including comets are able to charge to the ambient plasma potential. Why? In your mathamagicians world view, is this possible? If not, no electric comet, the very topic of this thread... |
__________________
“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 |
|
6th August 2020, 01:16 PM | #215 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
Look thru the telescope jean tate,
|
__________________
“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 |
|
6th August 2020, 01:26 PM | #216 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
Sigh.
Once again, the topic of this thread is The Electric Comet Theory. There is, currently, just one ISF member willing to propose/defend/explain that Theory, you. You have briefly presented two Electric Comet Theories, B24 and T07. B24 is toast. Can we return to discussing T07, please? Let's begin with this basic question, in The Electric Comet Theory T07: how are "oBjects including comets [...] able to charge to the ambient plasma potential"? Starting with direct reference to T07 itself. Thank you in advance. |
6th August 2020, 01:55 PM | #217 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“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 |
|
6th August 2020, 02:05 PM | #218 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
My view is irrelevant.
Again, the topic of this thread is The Electric Commet Theory. Focussing on T07, for now anyway. Also, your claim - re The Electric Comet Theory T07 - is that "oBjects including comets are able to charge to the ambient plasma potential" (my hilite).
Quote:
It may be necessary to read only T07. So, to repeat my question: In The Electric Comet Theory T07: how are "oBjects including comets [...] able to charge to the ambient plasma potential"? Looking forward to your answer. |
6th August 2020, 02:28 PM | #219 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues
Sol88 lies with "When is MHD been proven to be correct?" when MWD is textbook physics, i.e. matches real world plasma in experiments and observations.
Sol88 lies with "Haser model, same basket" when this is textbook astronomy. Sol88 lies with "Now, it’s not the ‘60s anymore, now is it" when the Haser model is still valid within its area of application. It is not the 1700's but Newton's laws are still valid for non-relativistic speeds ! Sol88's lie and stupidity of "Mathamagicians Doing their majik.". Science is not magic except to people like the ignorant, lying and deluded Thunderbolts cult. The stupidity is Sol88 insulting the scientists abused in his cult's dogma ! If he had ever read Birkeland's book he would find many pages of mathematics such as a calculation of the speed of the "electron pencils" Birkeland thought caused aurora. Sol88 lies with "The Dirtysnowball" which is a scientific theory based on physical evidence not his ignorant "math magic" fantasy. Sol88 even constantly lies abut the name! It is the "dirty snowball" (two words) model. Sol88 lies with "this is seen in the data" when there is no measurement of the charge of a comet nucleus. Sol88 lies with "Meantime everyone here including you is avoiding the question" when we have answered it and Sol88 cited papers on this mainstream ice and dust cometary science. Sol88 lies with "your mathamagicians world view" when we have the scientific view of the real world. As Sol88 cited, apply the laws of physics to the solar wind hitting a comet nucleus and it will become charged to a small voltage and in theory (but not observed) dust can be ejected. Sol88 lies with "If not, no electric comet" when his cult's deluded dogma about comets does not include mainstream ice and dust cometary theory of the solar wind electrostatically charging dust during the time before the coma stops it reaching the nucleus. Sol88 lies with "Look thru the telescope jean tate" when JeanTate is asking about the Thunderbolts cult's dead and deluded dogma which is based on completely ignoring what is seen in telescopes ! |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
6th August 2020, 02:47 PM | #220 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Sol88 and the Thunderbolts cult refusal to "Look thru the telescope"
That is some more of the Thunderbolts cult delusions. Firstly that just looking through a telescope shows that comets are their delusion of rock blasted from Earth, etc. by thunderbolts between planets, etc. Secondly that they are not completely ignoring what is seen through a telescope! Thirdly that only telescopes exist !
More about Sol88's cult, Sol88's lies, Sol88 emphasizing his cult's idiocy and Thornhill's delusions about physics. We have sent spacecraft to comets with cameras and scientific instruments (and an impactor). They all gave empirical evidence supporting that comets are ice and dust, as in the many papers that Sol88 has cited many times. The images collected by looking thru telescopes tell us that comet nuclei are dark, variously shaped (as predicted by the mainstream) and have features consistent with being ice and dust (plains, scarps, cliffs). These features change as ice sublimates. Sol88's cult have the delusion that they see rock. The orbital data collected by looking thru telescopes tells us that comets are less dense than water as pointed out 11 years ago here and known since the 1960's . Sol88's cult have the delusion that comets are the density of asteroids. The spectroscopic data collected by looking thru telescopes tells us that comets are covered in organic material and emit gases from sublimating ices. Sol88's cult have the delusion that comets are covered in soot from a delusion of the industrial process of EDM happening at comets. How Sol88 and Wal Thornhill make the electric comet deluded with EDM |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
6th August 2020, 02:55 PM | #221 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
The usual abysmal level of lies, delusions, insults, etc. addressed since 6 July 2009
The thousands of lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma.
The abysmal insults of the deceased Michael Francis A'Hearn and all astronomers by Sol88 linking them with Sol88's dogma, etc. (no astronomer believes comets are actual rock) 531 items of lies, insults, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020 The litany of lies, etc. continues.
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
6th August 2020, 03:58 PM | #222 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“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 |
|
6th August 2020, 04:26 PM | #223 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Years of lying about posts, posters and science continues
Sol88 nonsense of "Indeed it is and has been for awhile" when it is Sol88 demanding views on irrelevant mainstream ice and dust cometary science for many years.
Sol88 lies with "Shouldn’t even really be a “view”." when it is irrelevant mainstream ice and dust cometary science. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
6th August 2020, 11:02 PM | #224 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,259
|
|
__________________
Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none! |
|
7th August 2020, 12:01 AM | #225 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“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 |
|
7th August 2020, 01:07 AM | #226 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
A better question would be, in what form would the charge imbalance show up in the Rosetta data if the nucleus were a charged object (rhetorical anyway but anywhoo, ill play with ya’s) in trying to attain the sum of all currents to zero. Charge neutrality must be constantly trying to be maintained for it to remain a comet.
Otherwise, it’s an asteroid. |
__________________
“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 |
|
7th August 2020, 04:06 AM | #227 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
|
See how our Sol88 once again tries to steer away the conversation from presenting an actual working model and ignores the internal inconsistencies created by his own attempts at making one.
Can you show the maths that allows a negatively charged object to discharge AWAY from a positive pole? I know it's just one of your many magical claims, but it shows such an ignorance about even basic electricity that I wonder how you ever allowed to slip it in. Of course, given your claims, I doubt you had or understood high school science at all. |
7th August 2020, 04:31 AM | #228 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“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 |
|
7th August 2020, 05:41 AM | #229 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
|
Ah, so you refuse to answer a core question about your theory by going with the 'just asking more irrelevant nonsense' route.
YOU have claimed comets are negatively charged. YOU have claimed that the sun is positively charged. YOU have claimed the tail of a comet is a discharge event in the solar electric field. YOU have claimed to know electricity. Now every electric experiment ever claims the tail of the comet would then point TO the sun. So, explain that first, preferably with math and an experiment, then come back to see if you can understand mainstream science. |
7th August 2020, 08:26 AM | #230 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,259
|
You should have read your critics more closely instead of ignoring them. Just take a look at what Lukraak_Sisser is telling you: a negatively charged object does not discharge away from a positive pole. This is one of reasons why you reject math. You would have cheerfully accepted it if it had supported your position.
Besides, whenever somebody has made a calculation for you, it has shown that even when the effects that you dig out exist, they are not nearly strong enough to have an influence. And that gives you another reason to replace mathemajicks with your own math-free majick. |
__________________
Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none! |
|
7th August 2020, 04:18 PM | #231 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
Sigh.
Once again, I do not understand The Electric Comet Theory, the topic of this thread. You do (or at least seem to be the best informed of regulars here now). So here's my question again: In The Electric Comet Theory T07: how are "oBjects including comets [...] able to charge to the ambient plasma potential"? When may I expect an answer? |
7th August 2020, 04:47 PM | #232 |
Scholar
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 103
|
Mathematics are merely, in the context of physics, a tool, allowing us to describe natural phenomens in a very precise, quantifiable way. You can see it as a specific form of artificial language, designed to overcome the limitations inherent to the vague and empirical rules over which spoken languages are based.
There are, of course, scientists who study 'the tool itself' - pure mathematicians. But that's not what (astro)physicians are doing. They are only using mathematics to express clearly and quantify their ideas. This is no different from musicians using music staff notation to write down their composition so others can reproduce them and understand them. Physicians are not inventing mathematical developments "out of thin air", as you seem to think; they make hypotheses and postulates, then they formalize them using the universal mathematical language, so others can understand what they mean and measure how far/close to reality they are. That's what people here were trying to ask you for all these years - if you have an 'Electric Universe Hypothesis', why not express it in precise, unquestionable terms that only the mathematical language allows? Or maybe you are trying to say that mathematics are not always able to describe a physical phenomen? But then, what would be a proper language to describe such a phenomen in a precise, impossible to twist, way? Obviously, spoken languages like English would do no better than maths, as they can only achieve the same amount of precision that mathematical notation can with lots of effort. What language to use, Sol, to describe and quantify EU, besides the mathematical one? What would you suggest to use as a 'common formalizing language' for it? This also implies an interesting side question. You keep quoting scientific papers of all kinds. Those papers routinely formalize their findings using the mathematical language. So, in some way, you agree that this language is accurate enough for the phenomens they are describing or the theories they are proposing. The question is thus: why would the mathematical language be 'good enough' for all of them, yet unsufficient and lacking for EU itself? Or, put in another way, what makes, according to you, EU so different that it cannot be formalized the same way as those? |
7th August 2020, 10:32 PM | #233 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
Well A Fully Kinetic Perspective of Electron Acceleration around a Weakly Outgassing Comet Is full of maths and plain English that says comets are an electrical phenomenon...
What say ye, maths speaker? Especially the maths, as I’ve asked and received no response, on this particular little gem...
Quote:
This sound like brand new stuff here folks, maths and all. |
__________________
“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 |
|
7th August 2020, 11:54 PM | #234 |
Scholar
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 103
|
I'm saying that you are not answering my question(s). I asked:
- Why do you think maths cannot be used as a formal descriptive language for the EC theory; - What makes the EC theory different from other papers you're constantly quoting, that makes mathematics an acceptable descriptive language for all those papers, but not for the EC itself; - What other symbolic language would you propose to describe the EC theory, given that you consider mathematics to not be suited for it. You answered by linking to a document that does not describe nor formalize the EC theory. Its content may be interesting per se, but it is off-topic. Or did I misunderstood, and should I consider the paper quoted above as a reference document describing the EC theory? |
8th August 2020, 05:21 AM | #235 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
Per se?
The dust (Mass) is being electrically removed via the above process math and all. EC theory description in a mainstream paper? No, a confirmation of a process not involving sublimation as the main cause of mass loss. THIS IS NEW too mainstream science in its application to the plasma around a comet. Didn’t need math to describe it either but I understand what is implied by their findings... |
__________________
“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 |
|
8th August 2020, 06:08 AM | #236 |
Scholar
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 103
|
Yes, that I understood from the abstract. But as I said, that was not what my question was about. I was not asking about a mechanism to electrically remove dust.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, to remind you, I asked: 1 - Why do you think maths cannot be used as a formal descriptive language for the EC theory; 2 - What makes the EC theory different from other papers you're constantly quoting, that makes mathematics an acceptable descriptive language for all those papers, but not for the EC itself; 3 - What other symbolic language would you propose to describe the EC theory, given that you consider mathematics to not be suited for it. You did not answer 1 at all, I think. Why? This should be a pretty simple question to answer, since I'm merely asking your personal opinion. You did not answer 2 at all either. Again, I don't know why you didn't. You merely suggested that it "was not needed to describe and understand what's happening". That's likely true, but I was not asking if maths were *needed*; I was asking what would *prevent* maths to be used to accurately describe the ECT. After all, if a theory can be described with the limited expressivity of English, surely it could also be using mathematics, wouldn't it? You didn't answer 3 either. My only guess is that you have no idea about it and/or no suitable symbolic language has been designed so far to explain the ECT accurately. But then, could it still be considered as a scientific hypothesis? I hope I explained my questions a little better this time and that you'll be able to provide answers to those. |
8th August 2020, 09:46 AM | #237 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,259
|
Nobody denies that electromagnetics play a role for comets and in the universe in general. But this paper is not a paper on the EC theory, and this has been pointed out to you many times before. You seem to think that if the word "eletrical" is mentioned, it must support the EC theory. Much like you seem to think that if a flaw is found in the scientific theory of comets, then EC must be true.
But the impossibility of EC has been pointed out to you many times, so EC can never be scientific as long as this is not solved, and the real existence of electromagnetism in the universe is not a support of an impossible theory. |
__________________
Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none! |
|
8th August 2020, 11:25 PM | #238 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
|
__________________
“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 |
|
9th August 2020, 07:21 AM | #239 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
|
9th August 2020, 07:23 AM | #240 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|