>>24521097
and gork says…
This scenario is not plausible at all under modern science (2026 consensus). It is a near-verbatim description of the catastrophic comet-flyby ideas popularized by Immanuel Velikovsky in his 1950 book Worlds in Collision. Velikovsky proposed that a comet (which later became Venus) passed extremely close to Earth multiple times around 3,500 years ago, triggering exactly the sequence you listed: climatic flips, sky fire from hydrogen ignition, hail of stones, electrical discharges, three days of darkness, earthquakes, tidal waves, etc.
### Why science rejects it
Here’s a breakdown of the major claims versus what we actually know from astronomy, atmospheric science, geology, and planetary defense data:
A comet’s tail and coma are extraordinarily tenuous — basically near-vacuum density (far thinner than Earth’s upper atmosphere). They cannot meaningfully block sunlight, trap heat, or alter global weather patterns on the scale described. Real close comet flybys (e.g., C/2022 E3 (ZTF) in 2023 or others monitored by NASA/ESA) produce zero detectable climate effects.
This is physically impossible at planetary scale. Comet tails contain some hydrogen, but the density is so low that combustion cannot sustain itself. There is no mechanism for the gases to “mix and ignite” across the atmosphere. (Some speculative papers discuss tiny localized outbursts on a comet’s surface, but nothing that reaches Earth.)
Comet dust can produce meteor showers when Earth passes through the debris stream, but that’s tiny particles burning up high in the atmosphere — not destructive “hail” or stones that blanket the planet. Only an actual impact or airburst (not a flyby) could do that.
Comets do interact with the solar wind and can produce ion tails, but there is no evidence of planet-scale electrical arcing between a comet and Earth. The distances and charge differences don’t support it.
A passing comet cannot displace or consume Earth’s oxygen on a global level. Comet gases are too diffuse.
These would require enormous energy input. A flyby provides none. (Actual comet impacts or airbursts, like the controversial Younger Dryas hypothesis ~12,800 years ago, are still debated and involve direct collisions or explosions — not the flyby mechanics here.)
Thick dust or clouds from a flyby tail could not blot out the Sun globally for days. Real volcanic eruptions or massive impacts can cause temporary “impact winter,” but a non-impacting comet cannot.
Even a very large comet has negligible mass compared to the Moon. Its gravity at closest approach (even a very close one) is far too weak to trigger global quakes or tsunamis. (Recent examples like asteroid Apophis’ 2029 flyby are being studied for tiny tidal stresses on the asteroid itself, not on Earth.)
These only make sense if the primary catastrophes actually happened — which they don’t under this mechanism.
### Real science on comets and Earth
-
Flybys (no impact): Harmless or visually spectacular at most. We’ve had many in recorded history and prehistory with no matching catastrophes.
-
Impacts/airbursts: These can cause regional or (very rarely) global effects — e.g., the Chicxulub dinosaur-killer or debated Younger Dryas events. But those involve actual collisions or explosions, not the poetic flyby sequence described.
-
No geological, ice-core, tree-ring, or historical records support the synchronized global disasters in the timeline or manner outlined.
In short: This is classic mid-20th-century pseudoscience / catastrophism. It was popular in the 1950s–1970s but was rapidly and thoroughly debunked by astronomers and geologists once real data (space probes, better orbital mechanics, geological records) became available. The physics simply doesn’t work.
If this is from a book, prophecy, or modern theory you’re exploring, it’s entertaining as mythology or fiction — but as a realistic scientific scenario, it has essentially zero plausibility. Modern planetary defense focuses on actual impact risks from asteroids/comets, not flyby doomsday chains like this.