Originally Posted by mhgaffney
OK -- but if you want to understand my views about Venus you will have to do some reading. Are you ready for that?
This scientific paper dates to the early 1980s. The Plasma Discharge Comet Model has replaced the dirty snowball comet which dates to ~1950.
This new model is far superior because it accounts for electromagnetism -- and accurately predicts the shape of the cometary coma and tail as the comet approaches the sun. The snowball model cannot begin to do this.
The new cometary model is based on a new model of the solar system -- which also accounts for electromagnetism. It can explain the lightning we see on earth -- and which has been found on the other planets.
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?