Yep. Brian misrepresented Wal's life's work, without the benefit of a book title, a page number or a sentence from his work. That's certainly not very "professional". If you write a paper you have to document every claim that is being made so people can look up your references. I have no idea what Brian is even talking about, because (I just found out today) apparently he's just picking randomly from various authors of his choosing to create a strawman definition of an "electric universe" that *nobody alive today* within the electric universe community even believes in! What a unethical way to debate the lifes' work of Wal Thornhill. Give me a break.16 June 2016
Over in TBF, you took Brian to task for not providing an exact, primary source, reference (down to the paragraph, no less).
So what? I wasn't critiquing their work, nor do I have any doubt about the authenticity of the image. I didn't misrepresent the image in any way did I?Yet in discussing “the neutrino image of the Sun”, you seemed much less concerned (FWIW, I think the primary source is Figure 2 in “Measurements of the Solar Neutrino Flux from Super-Kamiokande’s First 300 Days”, Physical Review Letters, Volume 81, Issue 6, August 10, 1998, pp.1158-1162).
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Klein-Al ... _CosmologyOn Alfven’s cosmological model: in which of his papers covering this does he show that it is consistent with GR?
H. Alfvén, O. Klein (1963). "Matter-Antimatter Annihilation and Cosmology". Arkiv för Fysik 23: 187–194.
H Alfven, Worlds-Antiworlds: Antimatter in Cosmology, 1966, WH Freeman, San Francisco, ISBN 978-0716703174
Do you have a problem with that paper for some reason?FWIW, I’ve read what I think is all of them, and there is no such demonstration; in fact, I think it’s pretty clear he doesn’t understand GR, as applied to cosmology (I’d love to be shown to be wrong, however).
Um, I don't think Thornhill's book passed peer review either, but that didn't stop Brian from critiquing it. In terms of what he has been saying for the past 15 years however, there are plenty of other references to consider. Brian isn't even debating "peer reviewed" material to start with, and I didn't require him to produce such work. All I wanted was a real citation so I could figure out what the heck Brian is talking about, and figure out where he got such a ridiculous idea.On Thornhill’s “prediction of solar neutrinos”, as you wrote in TBF yesterday: Per your source (which is not, as I’m sure you are well aware, a paper published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal),
As long as one accepts the concept of oscillation (and I do) I don't technically need one. Whether they are emitted in all the flavors won't make one iota of difference with respect to the image in question.“photospheric lightning discharges” generate all “the various neutrino “flavours””. Really? Do you have a source for that (other than the one you quote from)?
My own standards? Did Brian even pick a published and peer reviewed source *anywhere* on his blog entry? I went with the standards Brian started with, but without a real citation, I have no clue how Brian got the false impression that Wal Thornhill predicted zero neutrinos. Inquiring minds want to know.It seems ridiculously wrong, in so many respects … so I would expect that it’s been rigorously studied, and (per your own standards) is backed by extensive lab-based experimental results.
Birkeland assumed that the sun was internally powered by a "transmutation of elements". I'd assume the power source is fusion and it's occurring throughout the sun, as well as the atmosphere above the cathode surface.Back to solar neutrinos. You wrote (in TBF) “I am personally a Birkeland (internally powered) solar model supporter myself”. How are solar neutrinos produced (generated) in such a model? What does such a model have to do with Birkeland?
I don't really need anymore 'detail' other than to assume that most if not all the elements in the universe exist and are present in the intergalactic medium and they get heated by starlight. Carbon dust alone would probably do the trick. The temperature is just the *average temp* of spacetime. No big deal, and Eddington *predicted* it a whole lot *closer* than any early big banger.There’s lots more, but just this one for now: in TBF you wrote ” A simple scattering of starlight in plasma can easily account for the overall background temperature of the universe”. As I’m sure you are well aware, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has a spectrum that is almost identical to that of a black body. How, in detail, can starlight scattered by plasma produce a black body spectrum?