Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ATKINS
[snip]
I'd say that the Electric Comet article presents the case pretty well by bringing together and summarizing in one article the whole set of recently observed phenomena concerning cometary behaviour which does not seem to comply with expectations based on the "dirty snowball" model. It would, of course, now need to be updated, at least as regards the chapter on the Stardust mission (“Stardust Shatters Comet Theory"), to include the latest findings on the apparently asteroidal nature of Comet Wild 2.
|
OK, so you seem to accept it as a valid presentation of the case that various observed phenomena associated with comets can only be explained with an 'electrical interpretation' - if not, please say so - I'll take a look at it in more detail later. |
I support David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill's contention that the whole set of observed phenomena associated with comets can be accounted for by an EU interpretation. And it's not simply after-the-event rationalization: as you well know (we already crossed swords on this over a year back), the EU theory also allowed Thornhill to make very precise
predictions regarding the Deep Impact collision the day
before the event. To my mind, a theory which can both account for past and present observations (including the most recent, the latest findings concerning the asteroidal nature of Comet Wild 2) and predict future events can't be that far off the mark. But it's true that "logically" other theories might exist and you are, of course, perfectly free to state that "The rest of the universe could - logically - be ruled by
Van Rijn's invisible elves (who know nothing of electricity)", as you say a little later in your post. But so what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ATKINS
I'm not sure, though, that we should speak of the 'electric comet case' (my bold). If EU proponents seem to be focusing particular attention on comets, it's only because they are easier to observe hands-on than many other types of (much) more distant object (e.g. galaxies, "galaxy clusters", "black holes", quasars, etc.) which, they argue, display similarly electrical characteristics. The argument goes, as you well know, that if observed cometary behaviour can indeed only be explained in terms of electric discharge phenomena being produced by the movement of an electrically charged body through the electromagnetic field of the sun, then this proves that we do not live in an electrically neutral universe. (That was what I meant in my earlier post when I wrote that "the implications for the whole of cosmology are literally shattering" to which you responded by the comment "Comets to the whole of cosmology eh? That's quite a bold assertion." Maybe so, but it simply follows on logically.) As regards the importance being assigned to comets within the framework of the overall EU case (here we can use the term "case"), they should be considered as simple indicators of a much broader phenomenon, a bit like the fisherman's float, which is a visible and almost totally reliable indicator of an invisible fish biting: when the float bobs or goes under, there are generally not many alternative interpretations as to the cause. In my experience, it's never because the the float suddenly got water-logged, for example. Floats don't, just as the four comets we have to date gathered detailed information about just don't show any obvious signs of containing ice.
|
Indeed.
And this is as good an example of flawed logic in both the particular and general case as any ... let's look in some detail.
If EU proponents seem to be focusing particular attention on comets, it's only because they are easier to observe hands-on than many other types of (much) more distant object (e.g. galaxies, "galaxy clusters", "black holes", quasars, etc.) which, they argue, display similarly electrical characteristics.
Without the " only", this would be fine; adding that word opens the assertion to a range of challenges; however, I shall not pursue them now.
if observed cometary behaviour can indeed only be explained in terms of electric discharge phenomena being produced by the movement of an electrically charged body through the electromagnetic field of the sun, then this proves that we do not live in an electrically neutral universe.
One good thing about this use of " only" is that it puts the burden of showing that all other possible explanations - including those not yet written - cannot explain " observed cometary behaviour". Further, so long as any other explanation looks like it has even the faintest of possibilities of so explaining, the part following " then" is, logically, null.
being produced by the movement of an electrically charged body through the electromagnetic field of the sun - this is also good, because it establishes, in bullet-proof logic, what proponents of EU ideas must do. I note, in passing, that such proponents have, so far, failed to produce any such explanation (but I'll take a deeper look at the 'Electric Comet' PDF later).
this proves that we do not live in an electrically neutral universe - logically, it does nothing of the sort! All it would show is that comets can be ("only") explained by one particular model involving (vague, woolly, illogical, etc) EU ideas. The rest of the universe could - logically - be ruled by Van Rijn's invisible elves (who know nothing of electricity). |
This is just quibbling over a couple of insignificant words in an attempt to divert attention from the substance of my argument. You use a lot of words yourself here to ultimately only pick a quarrel with just
two words
I used, "only" (twice) and "then". I'm quite happy to withdraw them, if you prefer. It doesn't make any difference to the case I'm making. And I've already answered the point
you seem to be making. (See above).
Luxor recently said you were writing like a politician, I think it's more like a lawyer, at least in this passage. Could we please get back to addressing the scientific substance, including the straightforward questions we are asking regarding the asteroidal nature of comets?
As for your calling EU ideas "vague, woolly, illogical, etc", may I point out that this is itself a totally vague and meaningless value judgement which, in any case, you can only legitimately make once you have actually read about them. This sort of intellectual approach reminds me of what I remember your once writing in the defunct "More from Arp et al." thread, when you claimed never to have read any of Arp's work in general and his latest book "Seeing Red" in particular because it would "only make [you] angry".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
This part of the assertion is even irrelevant (strawman) - "an electrically neutral universe" is meaningless/undefined (how could you show, even in principle, that the universe as a whole is not neutral?), or patently wrong (if at least one part of the universe is not neutral, even if for only an attosecond, for example), or just plain muddle-headed.
|
Thanks for the "muddle-headed". As regards
content, I think the point I was making should be clear to everyone. I was talking about general principles: in maistream BB cosmology the dominant force is asserted to be gravity and if electrical phenomena are now reluctantly beginning to be acknowledged in certain limited cases, they are still being claimed to have only minor significance. EU theory asserts the opposite. Consideration of the possibility that there might be minor exceptions to whichever theory is correct ("if at least one part of the universe is not neutral, even if for only an attosecond, for example") is totally irrelevant to the discussion. This is again just quibbling, presumably designed to throw up a smoke-screen around these inconvenient lumps of rock which behave so embarrassingly like comets.
I'll respond to the rest of your post a bit later.