Can something that never really started actually end?
If Guthanity is any indication, apparently not. None of our metaphysical dogma works in the lab so it never really "started" from the standpoint of empirical cause/effect physics. Guth's supernatural nonsense can be traced back to the wild, overactive imagination of a *single* individual, and his ridiculous nonsense has failed more tests than it passes, including those hemispheric variations in the Planck data. The whole thing should have imploded before it even began expanding if you folks used GR consistently.
At the end of the day it comes down to two people who have a bizarre belief that Velikovsky was right. By definition, that disqualifies it from being remotely related to anything scientific.
This is just another example of more EU/PC hater bullshit, more of your own damn lies, and more pure ignorance on your part. Birkeland started EU/PC theory, not Velikovsky, and he started it with *real working experiments* and in-situ measurements that continue to beat anything that the mainstream has ever been able to do in a lab. Birkeland's published work predates anything Velikovsky published by 30 years. The fact that you spread such disinformation only demonstrates your own ignorance. I personally don't adhere to any of Velikovsky's ideas or beliefs so your claim is obviously just pure bullshit. You're apparently all just a bunch of dishonest liars and total cowards who hide behind anonymous handles while you spread your dishonest BS.
By definition, that disqualifies it from being remotely related to anything scientific.
No, by definition your false beliefs about EU/PC theory disqualify you from being able to speak honestly about EU/PC theory.
Even the adoption of certain ideas from the likes of Alfven, Peratt, Juergens et al, can be traced back to the loon Velikovsky, and his "Cosmos without Gravitation" nonsense.
More lies. Which papers or books by Birkeland, Alfven or Peratt have anything to do with Velkovsky? You're just flat out lying yet again. Do you people have any scientific integrity at all?
Thornhill wants to force fit everything into a Velikovskian worldview, with Venus doing handbrake turns around the solar system a couple of weeks ago last Tuesday.
Even *if* that were true, Thornhill isn't the only EU/PC advocate on planet Earth, and Velikovki is dead. Since you cannot and will not accurately describe the neutrino predictions of Thornhill's solar model, why would anyone believe anything that you say about Thornhill? You're all a proven pack of flat out liars about Thornhill's beliefs as your "no neutrino" BS demonstrates.
Hence his risible attempts to describe gravity as an EM effect.
What a bunch of horse manure. Theories of everything have attempted to tie all the forces of nature together since before any of us were even born, and they'll continue long after we're all dead too. Condemn Thornhill all you like, but your condemnation won't change history.
It can't possibly be that the loon Velikovsky was wrong, and the laws of physics are correct - nope, V was right, therefore we need to rewrite everything we know about physics. The fact that his acolytes can't see through this is sad.
What's sad is that none of that is true from my perspective, but you keep misrepresenting everything I say, everything Thornhill said about neutrinos and solar theory and everyone and everything about EU/PC theory. You're a coward too since you refuse to even use your real name while you spread disinformation galore.
The irony is that it's *you folks* that refuse to accept the standard particle physics model, or abide by the laws of physics as it relates to the conservation of energy, and you promote pure metaphysics rather than empirical physics. You're obviously projecting your own dishonest behaviors on our entire community.
All of their electric sun ideas are laughably bad.
No, all of our electric sun ideas actually work in the lab, including both the anode and cathode configurations, whereas your solar model fails to produce even a sustained hot corona in a lab, and it's convection predictions have been falsified by SDO. Your *beliefs about* EU/PC solar models are laughably bad, starting with your bogus "no neutrino" BS. Your own ignorance of EU/PC theory is laughably bad.
Juergens was, I'm afraid, clueless.
Not nearly as clueless as EU/PC haters however since Juergens never claimed that our sun produced "no neutrinos' ever. Again, you're obviously projecting your own ignorance of his work on him.
As is Scott, when it comes to astrophysics.
More lies. Let's see you find any error in his recent Birkeland current paper hotshot. Watch how fast you run and hide from that request.
Talbott has never studied science, and Thornhill has a bachelors degree. Whoopee.
Koberlein can't even get their predictions about neutrinos right, so what good is a 'better' degree? Whoopee. Lying Brian Koberlein is still frigging clueless and he's still dishonest as all hell. Do more degrees justify those outrageous lies in your mind?
They don't even manage to understand what their heroes, such as Alfven, were actually saying.
More false BS from a guy who thinks that EU/PC solar models predict no neutrinos and excess gamma rays and doesn't even realize that Alfven used a *standard* solar model in terms of it's power source. You don't have a clue what Alfven even wrote and you certainly can't pick out any error he ever made.
They learn, by rote, passages from papers or speeches.
You're clearly projecting again as your previous BS about Birkeland's "various models" and your "no neutrino" nonsense clearly demonstrates. You probably haven't bothered to even read Birkeland's work or Alfven's book for yourself, have you? Haters just read a few websites and then spew the same erroneous nonsense which is why none of you set lyin Brian straight in over 4 years. You just repeat each other's BS.
They don't actually understand any of the science.
I understand that Birkeland's solar model works in the lab and that your solar model convection predictions are DOA. You're obviously projecting again because you don't even understand the neutrino predictions of EU/PC solar models.
Magnetic reconnection is a prime example.
Oh *PLEASE*! Let's see Reality Check's missing math formula to describe a non zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" without plasma or plasma particle acceleration and then (and only then) can you folks lecture me about "magnetic reconnection". You're all totally clueless as that whole "reconnection in a vacuum" conversation at ISF/JREF so clearly demonstrated. You can't even tell the difference between magnetic reconnection in plasma and magnetic flux in a vacuum.
They can't figure out that Alfven said that it could be possible under certain circumstances.
Actually, *only* in a *dense plasma* environment where *no current* is present would Alfven even listen to such a BS argument but you try to apply that pseudoscience to *light*, current carrying plasma, and Alfven's double layer paper eliminates the need for it in those circumstances. He called the whole idea "pseudoscience' 7 times in the keynote speech he gave where he presented his double layer paper that makes the whole thing obsolete.
Or that his mate, Falthammar, fully accepted it having been a PI on the Cluster mission, and seen the data with his own eyes.
Falhammar is like me in that he also recognizes that Maxwell's equations solve for both E and B and he embraces the "math" aspect. He certainly isn't clueless enough to believe it happens in a vacuum without plasma like your clueless heroes Clinger, and Reality Check. Oy Vey. EU/PC haters are the last people on Earth who should be talking about 'magnetic reconnection" after Clinger's laughable presentation.
They'll still believe in lunatic electric cratering, even though they have no viable mechanism. They'll still believe that Io's volcanoes are some sort of electric woo, even though another hero, Peratt, would (and did) tell them that it is due to tidal heating. They'll still believe that comets are rock, and all the stuff we see is due to some sort of unexplained electrical woo. Despite a complete lack of a valid hypothesis nor any evidence.
All because of Velikovsky's rubbish
Not all of us, but you never cared about being scientifically accurate.
Now, I'm sure that they have followers who will say that they don't take Velikovsky seriously. Well, here's some news guys; that is precisely what the EU is built upon. It wouldn't exist otherwise.
More flat out lies. EU/PC was built upon Birkeland's work first in terms of solar physics and solar system physics, and later upon Alfven's work and Peratt's work in terms of the cosmology aspects. Velikovsky is actually a *nobody*. Some people here may entertain his work, but not all of us. Birkeland's work, Bruce's work, Alfven's work, Peratt's work all would still exist, with or without Velikovski, and EU/PC theory would continue to be a "better" alternative to your LCMD dogma.
The laws of physics, and an awful lot of well established science needs to be thrown out,
You're the one that throws out the conservation of energy laws and the standard particle physics model, not us. Projection at it's finest.
just so that Wal and Dave can continue to peddle their unscientific idiocy to the faithful.
Very, very sad.
That part that's sad is your constant stream of lies. Wal and Dave graciously allow me to post here and I'm a part of the EU/PC community but I don't share all of their beliefs. We don't all think in lockstep like LCDM zombies as you so ignorantly imagine. You folks may all think in lockstep, and swallow the same poison metaphysical cool-aid, but our community is diverse and we allow for dissent and we hold different ideas, all of which you're completely ignorant of, as your ignorant "various" Birkeland models comment and your "no neutrino" BS so clearly demonstrates. You're tilting at strawman arguments every time you post something, and none of it is actually true. You don't care either because you're not even interested in science, or working laboratory models.