Bengt Nyman wrote:Michael Mozina wrote: ...
EU needs to make a contribution above and beyond Alfven and Peratt.
EU also needs an official spokesperson representing EU's positions on space science.
I think that Eric Lerner has made some important contributions in terms of supporting a static universe, and I love Dr. Scott's recent Birkeland current paper.
In terms of cosmology theory and astronomy in general however, the biggest obstacle to progress seems to be related to the mainstream's unwillingness to accept the role of the *electric* field in space. It's blocking all progress in relationship to solar physics, and cosmology theory in general.
IMO until the mainstream starts to recognize the value of Alfven's work and Peratt's work and Birkeland's work, it really doesn't matter what we publish.
Solar physics has the most to gain by embracing electric fields in space, but almost every aspect of cosmology will benefit as well. Until that bigotry towards electric fields and current flow in space is dealt with, I really don't see how any real progress can take place. We could write the "perfect" cosmology theory based on an elegant GUT, and it would still be ignored by the mainstream for exactly the same reasons that every other aspect of EU/PC theory is ignored by the mainstream. They have this huge chip on their shoulder as it relates to anything related to electricity in space.
When I put up my website on Birkeland's solar model, I fully expected to meet a lot of resistance over the concept of a layered solar atmosphere and a "rigid" surface below the surface of the photosphere, but I actually took much more grief over the electrical aspects of his model. That really surprised me. I didn't think that part of Birkeland's model was even particularly controversial and it goes a long way to explaining aspects of solar physics which are are currently unexplained in the standard solar model.
The moment I started debating the idea on "Bad Astronomy" (now Cosmoquest), I got labelled an "EU crackpot". At the time, I had no idea what EU/PC theory was even about. I was just interested in discussing solar physics and satellite imagery. That conversation at Bad Astronomy, and that accusation of being part of the EU/PC community was one of the things that motivated me to check out the EU/PC cosmology model, and to read Alfven's work and Peratt's work for myself. I could *never* go back now to supporting the LCDM cosmology model.
The main obstacle to acceptance seems to be directly related to the mainstream's irrational electrophobia, not due to a lack of material to support the EU/PC model.
The mainstream has put so many eggs in the CMB basket, it's a almost impossible to get through to them. Eddington predicted the average temperature in space to within 1/2 of one degree on his very first attempt based on the scattering of starlight on the dust of spacetime. It took BB proponents three or four tries to get any closer than he did to the correct number. The mainstream *still* think's they're able to see a mythical "surface of last scattering" on the walls of a snow globe universe, hence the whole BICEP2 fiasco.
The mainstream is too electophobic to listen to any theory that includes the influence of electric fields in space. It wouldn't matter what we published IMO. If it included electric fields, it would be immediately ridiculed or ignored by the mainstream.
