History of Venus

[W*GS]

It's gotten awfully quiet...

If we're lucky, gaffe is reading some real science.

I suspect not.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by W*GS

It's gotten awfully quiet...

If we're lucky, gaffe is reading some real science.

I suspect not.

Now, now. Let's play nice. I suspect Mark has taken my advice and is searching Google Scholar or conversing with his local library about obtaining those peer-reviewed journal articles substantiating McCanney's new comet model.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Thank you, Mark. But since this is an old paper which was produced between 1979-1981 (over 30 years ago), you must have links to peer reviewed journals which support this "new cometary model based on a new model of the solar system," right? Scientists can propose all sorts of "models" but if they don't stand up to peer review and the further analysis such review brings, they're not worth much. I mean, anyone can just come up with a model and write a book, have a few radio show chats and open a website, right? I mean, I run into fruitloops all the time who have crazy theories but just because these people have a theory doesn't mean the theory holds merit. People like Michael Behe, Walt Brown, David Rohl, Ron Wyatt have all floated out unconventional ideas but none of them have stuck, largely because they fail in the court of peer review. Other outlandish ideas, like Alfred Wegener's "Continental Drift" theory, have been proposed to a skeptical scientific community but the weight of the evidence behind the theory and its ability as a successful model to explain facts and withstand peer review have made them stand the test of time (and other scientists!).

W*gs has posted a link to a peer who has reviewed James McCanney's "new model" and it's not very favorable, to say the least. McCanney says he has an M.S. in Physics. The reviewer, Phil Plait, has a PhD in Astronomy and notes that McCanney says of his peers: "...NASA is lying to you, scientists are lying to you, I am lying to you. And, of course, only he knows The Truth." That sounds more like an ideologue than a serious scientist.

So, at any rate, you're off on a bad foot unless you can produce some peer reviewed material that supports McCanney's "new" model. Can I hope to see some forthcoming?

EDIT TO ADD: And does this "new model" somehow have something to do with the history of Venus? Could it be you are taking the long road to telling us that Venus is actually a comet? But first, we have to accept this new "paradigm" before you'll actually spit it out?

I sent Phil PLait an email awhile back - and asked him if he'd read McCanney's comet paper.

Plait never responded to my email -- so I think you must conclude that he never even read it.

I'm sure W*gs likewise never read it. This is the sort of nonsense we have come to expect from the likes of W*gs.

Just be aware you are trashing a science model that's never had a fair chance to be tested. Which of course is what separates the men from the boys.

The model deserves a test -- because McCanney predicted that comets would be found to produce x-rays. Mainstream astronomers were shocked when this was confirmed -- back around 1997 -- many years after McCanney introduced his comet model.

I've been on the road -- but I will be back soon.

MHG

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I sent Phil PLait an email awhile back - and asked him if he'd read McCanney's comet paper.

Plait never responded to my email -- so I think you must conclude that he never even read it.

Scientists get quackery all the time.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The model deserves a test -- because McCanney predicted that comets would be found to produce x-rays. Mainstream astronomers were shocked when this was confirmed -- back around 1997 -- many years after McCanney introduced his comet model.

Show me that they were "shocked".

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I've been on the road -- but I will be back soon.

Translation: I'm going off to sulk for a while, but I'll be back spewing the same nonsense, despite having it completely and utterly debunked.

Perhaps you can explain how Hale-Bopp managed to remain intact despite gaining mass on its pass through the inner solar system, as McCanney's theory claims it did. Did you work through the same math that Plait did? What did you come up with?

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I sent Phil PLait an email awhile back - and asked him if he'd read McCanney's comet paper.

Plait never responded to my email -- so I think you must conclude that he never even read it.

Why conclude that? I sometimes send emails to various professionals in fields I have no expertise to ask them questions and I don't always hear back from them. I certainly don't conclude they haven't read the material. For instance, I've written to certain professors of Hebrew to ask them about the meanings of certain words in the Old Testament and I never heard back from them. I didn't conclude these men and women did not read the Bible. I simply concluded they were too busy to respond to every email they get from complete strangers or that my email hit a spam filter. Odd that your conclusion would fall into a conspiratorial cover-up. Why make such an unwarranted assumption? Plait is obviously familiar with McCanny's work as he has written about it.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I'm sure W*gs likewise never read it. This is the sort of nonsense we have come to expect from the likes of W*gs.

W*gs is totally irrelevant to this topic. Your taking a side route just to poke a snide comment in his direction is unbecoming. Makes you look petty.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Just be aware you are trashing a science model that's never had a fair chance to be tested. Which of course is what separates the men from the boys.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the list of scientific publications you gave where McCanney submitted his paper and was unfairly rejected. Might you point me to the post where you listed those journals and the documented evidence of unfairness?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The model deserves a test --

That's what publishing in scientific journals gets you: tests to verify your assertions. Again, to what journals did McCanney submit his paper and what were the results of those submissions?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

because McCanney predicted that comets would be found to produce x-rays.

Had this not been thought of before? Is it crucial to McCanney's model? Does the fact comets produce x-rays confirm the entirety of McCanney's model?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Mainstream astronomers were shocked when this was confirmed -- back around 1997 -- many years after McCanney introduced his comet model.

So where is it documented that "mainstream astronomers were shocked" when it was discovered comets emit x-rays? How was it discovered that comets emit x-rays? Who made that discovery? Where was that discovery published?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I've been on the road -- but I will be back soon.

Drive safely.

[mhgaffney]

the sun = an electric capacitor

Science books tell us the sun is made up mostly of hydrogen. So far so good. What they often fail to mention is that the hydrogen is in a plasma state. What this means is that the protons and electrons are in a free state. The protons and electrons have separated due to the intense solar environment.

The outer surface of the sun is thus a seething ocean of free electrons. The protons are heavier and are found lower - below the outer layer.

But what is electricity? Free electrons!

The outer surface of the sun therefor holds an extremely powerful electrical charge!

How come they never told us about this in school? Good question. I suppose the answer is that the present Big Bang cosmological model is solely based on gravity. It does not account for electromagnetism -- and this is one of its main weaknesses. It's why we need a better model of how the solar system works.

Now let's see how comets and planets discharge the solar capacitor...

[mhgaffney]

The discovery of cometary x-rays

In 1996 scientists expressed surprise when they detected the first evidence that comets produce x-rays. They had no expectation that ice balls could do this. If you doubt the shock of this major discovery -- check out this report:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/rosat/hyakutake.html

It took NASA several years to explain the phenomenon. But James McCanney had already offered an explanation even before the discovery was made. Indeed -- McCanney had predicted the discovery -- based on his plasma discharge comet model. McCanney actually contacted NASA and urged them to turn on their instruments during the passage of comet Hyakutake. But of course -- they ignored him.

The discovery was made by accident.

In 2000 NASA announced that the x-rays were produced by ions from the sun - and indeed this may be a partial explanation.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/00_...ss_072700.html

Notice -- the x-rays are produced on the sunward side of the comet --

[mhgaffney]

How comets discharge the solar capacitor

But did NASA get it right? Their explanation -- no surprise -- completely ignored the sun's intense electrical charge.

Imagine a backyard bug killer. We've all seen them. They are very simple and consist of two plates -- one of which holds an electrical charge. When the mosquito flies between the plates it discharges the field. An electrical current leaps out and fries the bug.

McCanney's plasma discharge comet model works in a similar way. When the comet enters the solar system it begins to discharge the solar capacitor. When it comes within a certain distance -- a strong electrical current leaps from the sun to the head of the comet.

Because the comet is moving at high speed -- the electrical current is forced to slow down as it meets the comet. By the law of conservation of energy -- it must therefor lose energy -- which it does by emitting x-rays.

Notice, the mechanism is exactly the same as the known case of lightning -- which I already discussed.

The electrical discharge from the sun also explains many other phenomena-- for example, why comets light up like fluorescent light bulbs. They are literally powered by solar electricity!

MHG

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The discovery of cometary x-rays

Now, to the real science:

Comets emit X-rays, indicating they are not cold.

McCanney claims in that book (on page 1!) that he predicted that comets would give off X-rays, and also that the side of the comet facing the Sun would be the source of these X-rays. This has to do with his claim that comets are plasma balls, electrically coupled with the Sun. Amazingly, years later, it was found that not only do comets give off X-rays, but they comes from the sunward side! Could McCanney have been right?

Nope. Well, his prediction was correct, but for the wrong reason. For a prediction to be counted as a success, it has to be exclusive; that is, no other theory could account for it. The problem is, there are plenty of ways a comet could give off X-rays, even though it's cold. For one, comets get smacked by the high-energy particles from the Sun's solar wind. Ice, when hit like that, fluoresces; that is, gives off light. At those energies, the light given off is in the form of X-rays. So naturally, the part of the comet facing the Sun is where the X-rays come from.

McCanney is very derisive in his book about this. He says: "Let's get serious... x-rays coming from a docile little snow ball?" But think about it: when you go to the dentist, she isn't heating the X-ray machine to a million degrees to get it to give off X-rays! Those machines work by accelerating electrons to high speeds and slamming them into metals. When the electrons hit the metal, they slow down and emit X-rays in the process. So there are other processes which generate X-rays besides temperature, despite what he is saying there. Ironically, his own process is not thermal either, so why is he so derisive of cold comets giving off X-rays? Oh yeah: it's because he's wrong.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

the sun = an electric capacitor

Again, to the real science.

McCanney Claim #2: The Sun's solar wind is not electrically neutral.

(Emphasis in italics added)

He makes this claim because it sets up a later claim about comets gaining mass. We'll get to that in just a moment, but since that part depends on the solar wind not being neutral, let's get this out of the way first.

All normal matter is made up of three types of particles: electrons, which have a negative charge, protons, which have a positive charge, and neutrons, which are neutral.

The Sun is a big ball of gas. It emits a wind of particles from its surface, called, of course, the solar wind. According to McCanney, this wind has a net positive charge because "it continually ejects large composite streamers of primarily protons in the solar wind" (from his book "Planet X Comets & Earth Changes", page 54).

This is simply wrong. There are many experiments in space which directly measure the solar wind, and have found it to be ionized, but electrically neutral. In other words, the same number of positive and negative particles are emitted (see, for example, here, or here).If the Sun's wind were primarily positive particles, then the Sun would build up a vast negative charge on its surface. This would affect everything about the Sun, from its magnetic field to the way the surface features behave. We see no indications at all that the Sun has a huge negative charge.

For McCanney to make this claim is just bizarre, and completely contradictory to all evidence. But he's stuck with it, because it's basic to his other silly claims.

Conclusion: The solar wind is electrically neutral, not positively charged. McCanney is wrong.

[W*GS]

gaffe, how you doing on that calculation of the energy involved if comets were gaining mass as they traveled through the solar system?

Got it done?

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Now, to the real science:

Comets emit X-rays, indicating they are not cold.

Your expert -- who is it - Plait? -- does not understand McCanney's model.

The x-rays are not produced because of high heat. I've explained this in simple language.

The x-rays on the sunward side of the cometary nucleus are produced because energy is conserved. When the electric current from the sun reaches the comet it must slow down because the comet is moving very fast -- not sure how fast but probably 20,000 miles an hour at least.

As the electric current slows down it must give up energy - which it does in the form of x-rays.

Incidentally, Dr Dwyer also discovered that lightning also produces gamma rays -- and for the same reason.

I would not be surprised if astronomers find that comets also produce gamma rays -- and by the same mechanism. Maybe they should look.

MHG

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Your expert -- who is it - Plait? -- does not understand McCanney's model.

Uh, yes, he does.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The x-rays are not produced because of high heat. I've explained this in simple language.

The process by which comets produce x-rays isn't thermal. Duh.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The x-rays on the sunward side of the cometary nucleus are produced because energy is conserved. When the electric current from the sun reaches the comet it must slow down because the comet is moving very fast -- not sure how fast but probably 20,000 miles an hour at least.

You're making no sense whatsoever.

Got that calculation done yet?

[mhgaffney]

I never said it was thermal. Idiot. Go back and try again.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I never said it was thermal. Idiot. Go back and try again.

Sigh. Plait showed that McCanney's claims regarding x-rays are incorrect.

As for "Idiot", how's that calculation coming? Can you prove Plait wrong?

If you can, show your work:

PS - Since your case has already fallen apart, we're never going to get to Venus. Take a step back and drop the comet bull****, accept that Venus is a planet and always has been one, and never went ricocheting around the solar system. Accept reality.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Sigh. Plait showed that McCanney's claims regarding x-rays are incorrect.

As for "Idiot", how's that calculation coming? Can you prove Plait wrong?

If you can, show your work:

Plait never had an original thought in his entire life.

He's your kind of guy. Maybe you should ask him for a date.

[underrated29]

Gaff stop deflecting and answer the question about Venus.


For someone so smart, so in the know and such a free thinker it is really taking you a long time to perform, what should be for you, such a simple task.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Plait never had an original thought in his entire life.

He's your kind of guy. Maybe you should ask him for a date.

All you got left is b****y.

How's that calculation coming? Need some help?

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by underrated29

Gaff stop deflecting and answer the question about Venus.


For someone so smart, so in the know and such a free thinker it is really taking you a long time to perform, what should be for you, such a simple task.

We are almost there.

Understanding the solar capacitor and the new comet model is preliminary -- and prerequisite.

Otherwise you won't know what I'm talking about.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Understanding the solar capacitor and the new comet model is preliminary -- and prerequisite.

There is no "solar capacitor" and the "new" comet model is wrong.

Start all over, gaffe.

What's Venus?

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

We are almost there.

Understanding the solar capacitor and the new comet model is preliminary -- and prerequisite.

Otherwise you won't know what I'm talking about.

But, Mark, you haven't established anything yet. You've presented a fringe idea that has not been verified by peer-review. I know for a fact I'm not an astronomer and I doubt you have any training in the field, either, so how can either of us decide the validity of the McCanney's claims? Desire to do so won't cut it. W*gs uncovered one PhD'd astronomer who has critiqued McCanney's model and found all sorts of holes in it. All you've done is poo-poo Plait's comments and level unfounded ad homs at him (e.g. "Plait never had an original thought in his entire life."). Do you realize how petty you look?

Again, ANYONE can come up with a fringe idea. Ideas need to be tested in order for them to gain any sort of purchase in the realm of intelligent discussion. You can spend this whole thread regurgitating someone else's fringe theory all you want, but it won't get you anywhere. So, I'll ask again: To which peer-reviewed journals did McCanney submit his theory and what were the results of those submissions? You can't just bark "conspiracy" unless you can back up that claim with some established facts. So, if McCanney was systematically blocked from submitting his ideas to journals, please produce the evidence that this occurred. It may be that what you interpret as "conspiracy" was simply rejection for an idea the peer-review editors felt did not meet their high-standards for publication. In other words, the qualified editors themselves found too many flaws in the idea to even publish the work. Exactly what they would do to me if I floated the idea into a higher journal of Egyptology that the pyramids are millennia older than what is currently accepted based upon their alignment with Jupiter, my theory of Atlanthian influence and a reading of the Akashic Records.

Do you get it now? You need to SUPPORT these assertions, not merely present them. You've put the horse far too out in front of the cart, I'm afraid.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

But, Mark, you haven't established anything yet. You've presented a fringe idea that has not been verified by peer-review. I know for a fact I'm not an astronomer and I doubt you have any training in the field, either, so how can either of us decide the validity of the McCanney's claims? Desire to do so won't cut it. W*gs uncovered one PhD'd astronomer who has critiqued McCanney's model and found all sorts of holes in it. All you've done is poo-poo Plait's comments and level unfounded ad homs at him (e.g. "Plait never had an original thought in his entire life."). Do you realize how petty you look?

Again, ANYONE can come up with a fringe idea. Ideas need to be tested in order for them to gain any sort of purchase in the realm of intelligent discussion. You can spend this whole thread regurgitating someone else's fringe theory all you want, but it won't get you anywhere. So, I'll ask again: To which peer-reviewed journals did McCanney submit his theory and what were the results of those submissions? You can't just bark "conspiracy" unless you can back up that claim with some established facts. So, if McCanney was systematically blocked from submitting his ideas to journals, please produce the evidence that this occurred. It may be that what you interpret as "conspiracy" was simply rejection for an idea the peer-review editors felt did not meet their high-standards for publication. In other words, the qualified editors themselves found too many flaws in the idea to even publish the work. Exactly what they would do to me if I floated the idea into a higher journal of Egyptology that the pyramids are millennia older than what is currently accepted based upon their alignment with Jupiter, my theory of Atlanthian influence and a reading of the Akashic Records.

Do you get it now? You need to SUPPORT these assertions, not merely present them. You've put the horse far too out in front of the cart, I'm afraid.

I have presented strong supporting evidence. It is a fact that a comet's coma and tail change size and shape as a comet approaches and moves away from the sun.

The equations presented by McCanney in his plasma discharge comet model very accurately predict this behavior. In case you don't know, prediction is the essence of science.

The snowball comet model has no such predictive capacity.

Indeed, it's a joke -- and you are clowns to continue to support such nonsense. Comets are hard objects like asteroids. They can be any size -- even planetary size. The size issue is crucial in the case of Venus, as I will explain in my next couple of posts.

MHG

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I have presented strong supporting evidence. It is a fact that a comet's coma and tail change size and shape as a comet approaches and moves away from the sun.

The equations presented by McCanney in his plasma discharge comet model very accurately predict this behavior. In case you don't know, prediction is the essence of science.

The snowball comet model has no such predictive capacity.

It most certainly does.

McCanney's model is fatally flawed. As I've illustrated. And Plait has shown.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Indeed, it's a joke -- and you are clowns to continue to support such nonsense. Comets are hard objects like asteroids. They can be any size -- even planetary size. The size issue is crucial in the case of Venus, as I will explain in my next couple of posts.

You need to address all of Plait's arguments against McCanney's model before you can move on.

You demand we accept McCanney's claims without skepticism or argument. That's not how science works - what you want is an act of faith, not reason.

Again, show us how Hale-Bopp, for a specific example, could have gained as much mass as McCanney claims it did, without being destroyed by the process.

You've completely ignored that one argument, because it devastates the entirety of McCanney's theory.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I have presented strong supporting evidence.

I beg to differ, Mark. You've posted one man's "model" which is without benefit of peer review. Neither you nor I have the expertise to affirm or deny McCanney's hypothesis. It therefore remains unsupported.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

It is a fact that a comet's coma and tail change size and shape as a comet approaches and moves away from the sun.

Well, sure. And astronomers already know this:

As comets approach our Sun [within about 450 million kilometers (280 million miles)], they heat up and the ice begins to sublimate (change from a solid directly to a gas). The gas (water vapor, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and traces of other substances) and dust forms an “atmosphere� around the nucleus called a "coma." Material from the coma gets swept into the tail.

As comets move close to the Sun, they develop tails of dust and ionized gas. Comets have two main tails, a dust tail and a plasma tail. The dust tail appears whitish-yellow because it is made up of tiny particles — about the size of particles of smoke — that reflect sunlight. Dust tails are typically between 1 and 10 million kilometers (about 600,000 to 6 million miles) long. The plasma tail is often blue because it contains carbon monoxide ions. Solar ultraviolet light breaks down the gas molecules, causing them to glow. Plasma tails can stretch tens of millions of kilometers into space. Rarely, they are as long as 150 million kilometers (almost 100 million miles). A third tail of sodium has been observed on Comet Hale-Bopp. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/ex...ts/background/

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The equations presented by McCanney in his plasma discharge comet model very accurately predict this behavior. In case you don't know, prediction is the essence of science.

But there's already explanation of a comet's tail. What does McCanney's model provide that the standard model does not? And what sort of peer-review has McCanney's model received that lets us believe it should supplant the standard model?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The snowball comet model has no such predictive capacity.

Predict what? I did a quick search of "comet tail" on Google and came up with a lot of hits, including NASA. Seems we already know what causes comet tails.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Indeed, it's a joke -- and you are clowns to continue to support such nonsense.

Again, Mark, you continue to take away any potential for credibility by being abusive. There's absolutely no reason for the name-calling. However, may I also continue to point out that simply asserting the current scientific models are "nonsense" does not make them so; nor does a non-peer-reviewed fringe model without any peer-review support displace the current model on your say-so.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Comets are hard objects like asteroids.

An unsupported assertion.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

They can be any size -- even planetary size.

Another unsupported assertion.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The size issue is crucial in the case of Venus, as I will explain in my next couple of posts.

You needn't bother because your "next couple of posts" will again be based upon unsupported assertions. Were science that easy, we'd all have flying cars and perpetual motion machines.

[gyldenlove]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Your expert -- who is it - Plait? -- does not understand McCanney's model.

The x-rays are not produced because of high heat. I've explained this in simple language.

The x-rays on the sunward side of the cometary nucleus are produced because energy is conserved. When the electric current from the sun reaches the comet it must slow down because the comet is moving very fast -- not sure how fast but probably 20,000 miles an hour at least.

As the electric current slows down it must give up energy - which it does in the form of x-rays.

Incidentally, Dr Dwyer also discovered that lightning also produces gamma rays -- and for the same reason.

I would not be surprised if astronomers find that comets also produce gamma rays -- and by the same mechanism. Maybe they should look.

MHG

So your hypothesis it that x-rays are produced from brems-strahlung caused by the impact of solar electrons on the surface of the comet?

If that was the case everything in space should emit the same x-rays including unmanned probes and the moon.

FYI, the speed of the comet is irrelevant, solar electrons move at roughly 90-95% of the speed of light which is 300.000 km/s.