© Science Admins
The conventional model of comets has them as dirty snowballs with no EM effects. The EU thinks otherwise, but not all of their contentions seem to match up with the instrumented data. (Hoz posted an excellent article on the Criticisms of the Electric Comet that everybody should read.) Are there other possibilities?
'13-07-10, 20:05
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
Thanks to Hoz for opening the discussion by posting the article.
I cached a couple of the thunderbolts threads on electric comets (see On Other Sites), in case somebody wants to glean more info from them. If anybody knows of additional threads, let me know, so we can have a more comprehensive list of relevant resources.
Mathis has a paper on the topic that cites some interesting information on "anti-tails" that the mainstream model can't touch. (See http://milesmathis.com/comet.pdf. Lloyd's excerpts can be found here: 4. Comets (Mathis).)
Just to kick off the discussion here, as I recall, Brant & I are in agreement that there are definitely electrical effects on the surfaces of comets, and in the comas, but we were thinking that it was photo-ionization that was eroding the surfaces, not EDM.
It's also possible that comets have positively charged sheaths, partly because the heliosphere has a slight positive charge, and partly because of frictional ionization. So the "etching" that we're seeing might be more than just photo-ionization — it might be assisted by Coulomb repulsion in a positively charged body.
'13-07-20, 15:33
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
[This is a press release from Dave Talbott concerning the "Electric Comet" video.]
Since many folks would like to know:
Our video "The Electric Comet" was taken down by YouTube on July 11, under their automated rules relating to complaints and to reinstatement. Both steps are automated, and we've applied for reinstatement. The video should be back in less than ten days. Then, any claims of copyright infringement will require litigation, something we would look forward to considering the huge amount of confusion propagated by a few uninformed Inquisitors.
The complaint was filed by Travis Rector, prodded by Sean Walker. You can see Mr. Rector's Facebook report here: https://www.facebook.com/travisrector?fref=ts
For us, the problem with this report lies in what Mr. Rector does not tell you — the things you'd need to know for any reasonable assessment of the situation.
  1. The Thunderbolts Project video on the Electric Comet is the poster child for fair use. Factual reporting. No commercial interest. Direct implications for the future of comet science. Concentration on challenges to theory. Interdisciplinary education. Huge potential savings, where NASA could be spending billions asking the wrong questions. Lots of images, but no use of any image beyond a few seconds. An ideal fit to the legal definition of fair use.
  2. In disregard of the fair use principle Mr. Rector filed a complaint with YouTube. In particular, he violated the YouTube provisions on copyright issues in two ways: He failed to notify us of the issue in advance, as YouTube requires. And he named the claimant as the NOAO, though when we asked for confirmation of his authority to do so neither Mr. Rector nor the NOAO provided anything.
  3. The first frame of the video makes clear that it is not the finished product. We didn't just leave out the credits on images; we left out all of the credits of our own people, from producer and editor down to dozens of contributors. Surely that's a clue as to where we are in the production process. It is an interim presentation. Anyone wanting to know if we give our best effort to providing credits on images need only look at the Thunderbolts.info website. You'll find that every Picture of the Day, and every image in the Essential Guide to the Electric Universe, has credit provided. Due to the number of images in the 90-minute documentary, it's only reasonable to collate credits as we elicit critical scientific responses. Otherwise we'd extend the costly production time by months. No one is being treated unfairly.
  4. If any of you have a direct line to Mr. Rector, perhaps you would ask him why he felt justified in violating the explicitly-stated YouTube agreement. By all appearances he has joined with a handful of Inquisitors more interested in waging a war than getting to the truth of a matter. When the video is reinstated, as it will be, ask him to query comet scientists on the accuracy of the material presented. Perhaps they will name a statement or two in the video that needs adjustment (which is the purpose of the present scientific review). Beyond that, the facts stand up exceptionally well—all told, one more reason for the one-way traffic of scientists toward the Electric Universe.
  5. When today's Inquisitors seek to scare off scientists with the word "pseudoscience," they are only earning contempt from the growing community of working scientists that truly want to know. Wherever the facts are presented on an even playing field, the Electric Universe gains new support, often from leaders in the affected fields. Of this, the latest video is perhaps the best example. The response was amazingly positive and constructive, and that is surely the reason for the Inquisitors' desperation, as now exhibited—
  6. Don't believe in coincidence. In the previous 4 years, with dozens of videos posted, we had only one copyright notification, submitted according to the rules and resolved in 24 hours. Then suddenly, in one day last week, a flood of criticism was posted with no science whatsoever, just a baseless complaint submitted in violation of the rules, leading automatically to the video being taken down by YouTube. (That is part of the process prior to reinstatement, which is also part of an automated sequence.)
  7. More evidence of the desperation: Grown-ups will no doubt chuckle at the goofy reference to the Thunderbolts Project being in cahoots with "big banks." BBH is a globally respected financial management group. They don't finance us; they take instructions from our biggest contributor, protect his funds, offer sound legal advice, and convey contributions to whomever he chooses. He's been in our corner for decades.
  8. And finally, we ask everyone to please note that we simply asked Mr. Rector to withdraw his complaint, since he'd obviously broken the rules. Had he done the honorable thing we'd not be posting this report. Instead, he chose to spread more deception. In matters relating to the Electric Comet video, it is a futile tactic. The video is factually sound and based on discoveries explicitly acknowledged by the best comet scientists.
For the record, we don't pick fights. Within the comet sciences alone we've extended queries in dozens of directions, asking for criticism. But look at the way assorted "skeptical" groups have responded. (You'll have to take your own odyssey through the Internet circus.) This embarrassment to science will no doubt continue until clear voices within the established institutions insist on reasonable standards of discourse. When the subject is a well researched challenge to orthodoxy, one that growing numbers of accredited scientists find persuasive, the Inquisitors should have no role whatsoever in the process of evaluation. As demonstrated in the present case, they can only react from fear and their only role is to obstruct communication.
David Talbott
The Thunderbolts Project™
Mikamar Publishing
'13-07-20, 15:41
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
I really don't care about the copyright issue. But I find Talbott's attitude to be interesting. Despite the problems with the theory, he's digging his heels in, and he's trying to make it sound like a holy war that he's fighting. That kind of entrenchment is the end of objective reasoning. And that's my whole problem with the Electric Universe camp. If you come up with a new theory, you're going to get criticized. But if you let the criticisms make you feel embattled, such that you have to defend your position against attacks, and then, if you let that blind you to problems with your position, in the end, you will have defeated yourself.
And what is the evidence that the EU in entrenched?
Their position hasn't changed in 10 years. A lot has been learned in that time, and we now have solid evidence that at least some of their assertions are wrong. But they haven't budged. That means that they're entrenched.
'13-07-20, 18:11
St. Louis area

They certainily aren't very open to discussion, but I don't see a problem with their defending their right to present their material.

'13-07-20, 22:22
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
And just how is it that NOAO has any copyrights anyway? That's a publicly funded institution. Why aren't their products public domain from the start? For that matter, why is it that we pay for scientists to conduct research, and then we don't have free access to the journals? I understand that the journals are private enterprises, and they have to pay editors, printers, etc. But when they're charging $30 or more for electronic access to single articles, that's just ridiculous. Granted, they get to say that the articles are publicly available. But at $30, they're not selling any of those. Professionals get colleagues to snag the articles for them, and students go to the library. And it's just enough inconvenience to the independent investigators that it keeps them out. Argh.
'13-07-21, 18:46
St. Louis area

I think I'll copy your last message to the Improve Scientific Method thread. Everything in public libraries should be readable online too.

← PREV Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite
© 2010~2021 SCS-INC.US