https://briankoberlein.com/about/ Honest Science
The goal of One Universe at a Time is to convey an understanding of our Universe in a way that is honest and free of hype.
Well, Brian, let’s see how “honest” and accurate you were in presenting EU/PC concepts and see if you kept it free from “hype” as promised, shall we?
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... mment-4053Testing the Electric Universe
In Pseudoscience by Brian Koberlein 25 February 2014
There’s a cosmological model that has gained popularity on the internet known as the Electric Universe. The basic claim of the Electric Universe model is that much of the astronomical phenomena observed in the universe is driven by electrical interactions rather than gravitational ones. Proponents of the model claim that the Electric Universe is a much simpler solution that solves many of the cosmic mysteries mainstream astro-scientists are unable to solve. The model is so simple that it doesn’t require any of that mathematical obfuscation found in the standard model. But astro-scientists are too set in their ways to look at the model with an open mind. We certainly can’t ignore such a revolutionary idea, so let’s put it to the test.
There are actually many variations to the Electric Universe model, but the most popular version seems to focus around the book by Thornhill and Talbot listed below.
Dear Brian,
I’m extremely disappointed that you immediately decided to associate an empirical branch of physics (plasma physics), right or wrong, with the term “pseudoscience”. Some “open mind”. Unlike LCDM theory, every cause/effect claim that is associated with EU/PC theory has the potential of being tested in the lab under controlled conditions.
Coincidently, Hannes Alfven, the Nobel Prize winning father of MHD theory, called mainstream astronomy claims about “magnetic reconnection” theory “pseudoscience’ at the very same conference where he made that theory obsolete with his double layer paper over three decades ago.
Alfven almost exclusively used circuit theory to mathematically model events in space, and his book Cosmic Plasma is considered the foundation of the EU/PC cosmology model. This brings up my first criticism of your blog post on this topic. I’m highly disappointed, and rather offended that you did not mention any of the earlier “pioneers” in the EU/PC community, including Hannes Alfven, Kristian Birkeland, Dr. Charles Bruce, Ralph Jeurgens, Anthony Perratt, etc. I’m puzzled how you can claim to present an “honest” portrayal of EU/PC theory without even mentioning these important historical individuals?
I have no idea why you chose to focus all of your attention specifically on Thornhill or Talbot, but you ultimately made a number of erroneous claims associated with EU/PC theory that I feel compelled to respond to:
It is this basic model I’ll discuss here, using the references listed at the bottom of the post. If you want to get an overview of the model, Findlay’s ebook (available for free) is as good a reference as any. The basic idea of this particular model is that cosmic magnetic fields interact with interstellar plasma to drive astrophysical processes. Gravitational interactions play a negligible role in the universe. From this idea several claims and predictions are made. In particular:
Neither dark matter nor dark energy exist. Black holes don’t exist. The big bang didn’t happen.
Galaxies are formed by kinks in cosmic magnetic fields. They begin as electric quasars which then expand into modern galaxies.
Stars are electrically charged masses formed within galactic plasmas. They are not heated by nuclear fusion within their core, but rather by a flow of plasma, similar to a florescent light.
Most of that list isn't even true for most EU/PC proponents. It seems as though you’re confusing the various personal opinions of a couple of authors with the whole “umbrella” that is the electric universe/plasma cosmology community, and the overall range of beliefs that exist inside of that plasma cosmology community. Worse yet, it looks like you actually botched important parts of Thrornhill's presentation with respect at least to solar physics.
As you noted earlier, there are multiple dark matter models to choose from, and multiple brands of inflation theory that are discussed and debated in mainstream theory, and because of that variation, it’s rather complicated. Just so, there are actually a number of variations on the same EU/PC themes of cosmology, and an equal number of “complications” that arise from various personal variations on the same themes. As it relates to solar models in particular, there at least three primary solar models that have been discussed and debated over the decades by the EU/PC community, and a number of variations on each of those three primary themes. Unfortunately however, not a single one of them is well or even correctly represented in your blog entry. This is highly offensive for someone that professes to speak for “honest science”, and who claims to have studied this topic with an open mind.
Stars “give birth” electrically to companion stars and gas giant planets.
Hmm. Well, according to Birkeland, yes, the sun does emit particles that can give birth to companion planets, but they don’t *necessarily* have to form that way. There are actually a number of solar systems and galaxy formation possibilities that exist in the context of EU/PC theory. I’m going to skip over this issue only because I feel you simply oversimplified the argument and there are other, more pressing problems with your presentation.
Redshift is not a measure of galactic distance. It is instead a measure of galactic age.
That is not even a technically correct statement as it applies to EU/PC theory. Redshift is still a measure of distance even in a “tired light”/static universe scenario, it’s just not *necessarily* a predictor of expansion in EU/PC theory. In fairness, redshift could be related to an object movement/time dilation process in EU/PC theory, as well as caused by inelastic scattering, but redshift typically “explained” as a measure/function of distance even in EU/PC theory. I suppose that their might be exceptions to every rule of course on a person to person basis, but overall, even a static universe would imply a distance/redshift relationship. I didn’t read Wal’s book, but considering the neutrino errors that you made, I suspect you misrepresent their statements on this issue.
Special Relativity is wrong. General Relativity is wrong.
It’s certainly worth noting that neither of these statements is an actual requirement, nor an actually “prediction” of EU/PC theory, even if a few individual EU/PC proponents might harbor such personal opinions. Again however, Alfven had no problem with GR theory and he literally wrote the mathematical book (based on circuit theory) of EU/PC theory.
A neutrino image of the Sun. EU predicts this doesn’t exist.
Credit: R. Svoboda and K. Gordan – LSU
So, where to begin? Let’s start with the Sun.
Well, if we were being entirely “honest” when we start discussing the sun, we should be honest about what EU/PC theory actually does and does not “predict”. If you were portraying EU/PC theory properly, every possible EU/PC solar model does in fact necessarily predict that same neutrino image, or a very similar image. In fact all EU/PC solar models also predict atmospheric emission features that related to atmospheric instances of fusion that are actually observed in that image. That really wasn’t an actually an “honest” way to begin discussing solar physics in relationship to EU/PC cosmology theory IMO. No EU/PC solar model that has ever been discussed within the EU/PC community would predict that the sun emits no neutrinos as you erroneously stated. Every EU/PC solar model predicts that neutrino image, and every one of them predicts something unique compared to mainstream theory, specifically fusion in the solar atmosphere, and neutrino emissions from those fusion processes in the solar atmosphere. Based on the image, that’s exactly what we do observe too. We don’t see just a tiny little “dot” in the middle of the sun as we would expect to observe in the standard model, instead we see the whole surface of the sun, and areas even *outside of the surface* of the sun in that image, just as all EU/PC solar models would “predict”.
In the standard model, the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion in its core. There the fusion of hydrogen into helium produces not only light and heat, but neutrinos. In the electric universe model, the Sun is lit by electrically excited plasma. This gives us two very clear predictions. The first is regarding neutrinos. The standard model predicts that the Sun will produce copious amounts of neutrinos due to nuclear interactions in its core. The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.
That is an absolutely false statement. It makes me very sad to see a so called “professional” publicly state such unprofessional statements with respect to EU/PC theory. All EU/PC solar models predict that the sun and solar atmosphere should emit some amount of neutrinos. Furthermore, since there are multiple solar options to choose from in EU/PC cosmology theory, it’s really not as clear as you seem to naively presume. There are actually three basic solar models that have been discussed and that are still actively debated within the EU/PC community. Only one of those three basic solar models, specifically Ralph Jeurgen’s original solar model, would actually predict anything different than the standard solar model with respect to neutrinos counts from the sun. That is due to the fact that Juergen’s solar model was specifically designed to “postdict” a fit to a fewer number of neutrinos to start with, but it too predicts that the sun emits neutrinos.
For the record, Ralph Juergen’s developed his externally powered solar model theory during the “missing neutrino” days of solar physics, prior to anyone having any idea about the possibility of neutrino oscillation. It should be noted that Juergen’s tried to “make up the difference” in the perceived lack of neutrino output from the sun with an extra amount of electrical energy to provide and explain where that extra energy came from in the (perceived) absence of the correct number of neutrinos. Even Juergen’s original solar model however *required/predicted* the emission of at least a 1/3rd of the neutrinos as the standard solar model. In addition, Juergen’s original solar model can be modified, by adding (or subtracting) any amount of fusion power being produced internally, and any perceived future “neutrino deficit” could be explained by excess current. In no case however would any electric solar model predict a zero neutrino emission pattern as you erroneously claimed. That is simply a false and outrageously inaccurate assertion on your part. It’s a clear example of something that wasn’t “honest” about your presentation. Unfortunately it’s such a highly critical error that it makes one wonder if you really even understood the one book that you seem to be critiquing.
What is unique and noteworthy in terms of neutrino predictions about all EU/PC solar models compared to the standard solar model is that all EU/PC solar models allow for fusion to occur in the solar atmosphere, not just in the core. The image that you produced is consistent with that prediction. We do not see just a tiny clean “point” in the core of the sun, we see emissions from all around the atmosphere of the sun.
It should also be noted that Juergen’s solar model is simply more “flexible” than the other two EU/PC solar models with respect to predicted neutrino output. Whereas both Alfven’s solar model, and Birkeland’s “electric sun” models are both internally powered, and would both produce the same neutrinos as the standard model, Juergen’s model can be “scaled” up or down in terms of local fusion and overall neutrino counts. All EU/PC solar models predict *some* amount of neutrino emissions Brian, every single one. How could you misrepresent such a fundamental aspect of EU/PC theory as a “professional” Brian?
The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun. We have not only observed solar neutrinos, we have imaged the Sun by its neutrinos.
I’m afraid that the only thing that fails this particular “test” is you and your lack of knowledge of EU/PC solar models. Not a single EU/PC solar model makes the prediction that you claim it makes with respect to neutrino counts. Shame on you.
The second prediction regarding the Sun can be seen in its spectrum. In the standard model, the nuclear reactions in the Sun’s core produce light and heat that cause the star to shine. If this is the case, then Sun should emit thermal radiation. In other words, the spectrum of colors its gives off should be an almost continuous, with dark lines where cooler gasses in its upper atmosphere absorb some of the light. If instead the Sun were lit by electrically excited plasma, as the EU model predicts, the spectrum should be a discontinuous spectrum of bright lines. ……
Beyond any shadow of a doubt, the Sun gives off a thermal spectrum, not a plasma one.
Since we’re mixing and matching cosmology theories and solar theories, we should also note that both Alfven’s “electric sun” model, as well as Birkeland “cathode sun” model, are internally powered models. Both of those models therefore predict not only the same neutrino counts as the standard solar model, but they also predict the same basic thermal pattern as the standard model. While this particular argument might be able to be used as a valid criticism of Juergen’s original solar model, it could never be used to falsify the whole EU/PC cosmology paradigm as you keep erroneously asserting. The best you might hope to do with that argument is demonstrate that Juegen’s one possible solar model is *less likely* than other options in the EU/PC paradigm. Since I personally tend to favor an internally powered Birkeland cathode solar model, I tend to think that this particular argument is in fact a valid criticism of Juergen’s original solar model as would the neutrino count predictions of Juergen’s model tend to disfavor that one solar model.
But lest we be accused of not giving the Electric Universe model a fair shake, let’s look at the other claims. Are special and general relativity wrong? Nope. They’ve been confirmed in the lab. In fact whenever you use your mobile phone’s GPS to find a local coffee shop, you’re communicating with satellites that correct for the effects general and special relativity. Relativity is not merely abstract theory, it is now applied technology.
I’m again dismayed that you’re asserting that EU/PC theory somehow requires GR theory to be “wrong”. That’s simply absurd. Alfven even proposed his own “bang” theory based on GR. After that neutrino fiasco, how can I even be sure that you did any actual research into this project, or did you just read one book by two authors that have almost nothing to do with the history of EU/PC theory?
I have no idea how many (if any) EU/PC proponents believe that gravity plays no role in events in space. Alfven and me and many others fully embrace GR theory without all the supernatural claims about “dark energy” and “space expansion”. The validity of GR theory in no way invalidates any part of Alfven’s cosmological views. This is another place where your assertions are less than “honest”. The validity of Alfven’s cosmology theories in no way rises or falls on the personal beliefs of Thornhill or Talbot!
How about the idea that stars “give birth” to other stars and planets? If that were the case, we should see stars form as isolated objects in stellar nurseries, then later form planetary systems.
That’s not actually an accurate portrayal of the formation processes described in EU/PC theory any more than was your erroneous claim about EU/PC predicting “no neutrinos”. By design, we wouldn’t expect to see things develop in “isolated” environments, rather we expect them to be “fed” by Birkland currents that bring all kinds of dust into the solar system.
It doesn’t look good for the Electric Universe model. But let’s give it one last chance. In the standard model galaxies form gravitationally, and are well developed relatively early in the universe. Quasars are powered by black holes in the center of galaxies, and are one example of what we call active galactic nuclei.
Note that even in your model, Quasars have an intrinsic redshift.
In the EU model, quasars are formed by pinches in cosmic magnetic fields, and from them galaxies form. Rather than being an indication of distance, redshift is a result of the age of a galaxy or quasar.
That’s certainly not true of EU/PC theory as a whole, and I’m not even sure it’s true of Thornhill’s position. Thus far, I haven’t heard you correctly portray any part of Alfven’s cosmology ideas or Perratt’s mathematical computer models correctly, or anyone’s solar model properly, not one single part of it. Why is that Brian?
Even though Hubble himself came to believe later in his career that while redshift probably wasn’t related to expansion, it probably was related to “tired light/distance” relationship. Even in static (and there are expanding) versions of EU/PC theories (plural), redshift is a distance related phenomenon. I really have no idea where you got any of these ideas, and I suspect you didn’t even properly understand the single book that you did profess to read, particularly after that neutrino fiasco. I can’t imagine anyone actually said the sun emits zero neutrinos in any book on EU/PC theory.
So as galaxy matures, its redshift decreases. If the EU model is right, then we should only see quasars with high redshifts (therefore large inferred distances). Also, the more distant (redshifted) a galaxy, the less developed it should appear.
So here’s a collection of barred spirals at different distances (or redshifts). Notice how the most distant ones are the least developed? No? Actually they all look pretty similar, which is exactly what the standard model predicts, and what the EU model says absolutely shouldn’t happen.
But that isn’t what the EU model predicts anymore than zero neutrino emissions was a real “prediction” of the model. You seem to be misrepresenting large swaths of what you’ve read I’m afraid, and apparently you haven’t spent anytime studying the work of Alfven, or Perratt or Birkeland or Bruce, etc.
So never let it be said that an astro-scientist has never considered the electric universe model with an open mind.
When might I expect to see you show any semblance of an “open mind” in terms of admitting your blatant mistakes with respect to solar physics? If you can’t admit that much of many mistakes, I’d say your mind was closed from start to finish.
The Electric Universe model is wrong. Provably, clearly and ridiculously wrong.
We’ve put the Electric Universe to the test. Final Grade: F-
Actually what is ridiculously wrong is your blatant misrepresentation of even the basics of solar theory as it relates to EU/PC theory and neutrinos predictions. Final Grade F--------
You’re apparently grading your own erroneous strawman representation of EU/PC theory, not the actual history of EU/PC theory which has been around, and tested in the lab for 100 years now.
One thing that all the public haters have in common is an incapacity for honest one on one public debate. That's a riot!
What an egotistical putz.
