Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

[Michael Mozina]

I can appreciate why a typical astronomer might initially scoff at a new cosmology theory that they don't understand, and I can appreciate their motives for trying to defend the LCDM model when questions about it are raised on various forums. Those seem like typical and normal human reactions in fact. I've experienced that kind of process many times around the internet. In my experience, most such conversations proceed pretty smoothly. Even if we don't ultimately agree with each other's position, the conversations are typically amicable and they are usually focused on the subject matter itself. Such conversations tend to run their course after awhile. Even if no minds are changed in the conversation, a good exchange of information tends to take place. Those kinds of "typical' interactions make perfect logical sense to me.

What I *do not* understand is why a few very vocal individuals have taken it upon themselves to crusade *against* EU/PC theory on the internet, typically by *misrepresenting* the models themselves, and typically by attacking the *individual* rather than attacking and debating the ideas that are being discussed. That just seems like childish nonsense to me. I suppose that there's no need to "name names", since we've all bumped heads with them somewhere on the internet. There aren't that many of them in my experience, probably less than a dozen, but they are rather vocal. They're also quite "evangelical' in the sense that they repeat that attack the messenger mentality, and they misrepresent EU/PC ideas everywhere they go.

I simply don't understand the logic behind that irrational behavior. I'm sure that all astronomers have a vested interest in defending the LCMD model, and I'm sure they may even be motivated to actively reject a model that they don't like for some reason. What I don't "relate' to however, is what motivates them to *misrepresent* the models, and what motivates them to attack *people* rather than ideas. That's just irrational behavior IMO. The misrepresentation aspect tends to shock me the most. I really didn't expect to see that type of highly unethical and unprofessional behavior from so called "scientists". I just "assumed" that most scientists had an open mind and have a more 'mature' attitude when it comes to ideas that conflict with their world views.

I first noticed that irrational behavior at Bad Astronomy (now Cosmoquest) while I was discussing Birkeland's solar theories there about 12 years ago. At the time I had read Birkeland's work, but I had not even heard of EU/PC theory. I had not read Alfven's work, or Peratt's work, or Lerner's work or Scott's work, nor read any of the books on this topic. I didn't even know that there *was* a cosmology theory called EU/PC theory. The moment however that I began to discuss the electrical aspects of Birkeland's cathode model and his lab experiments in relationship to solar physics, several of the EU/PC "haters" as I now call them came unglued and instantly became belligerent. Every attempt that I made to "explain" the model that I was trying to present at BA/CQ based on satellite imagery was met with childish personal insults, and an endless parade of strawman arguments that weren't even *remotely* consistent with my statements. They spent far more time and effort intentionally *misrepresenting* my statements than actually listening to them and responding in a logical manner. They also began to instantly associate me with 'Electric Universe crackpots/cranks/nutters" even though I'd never even heard of that term prior to that conversation. I felt like i had stepped into the middle of an ongoing war that began *long* before my involvement in the process.

The "net effect" of that conversation at Bad Astronomy on me personally was to pique my interest in what they were calling "Electric Universe theory". At the time I had no idea what they were even talking about. I eventually got curious so I came over here to Thunderbolts and asked some questions about which books and papers i could read that would explain the underlying cosmology ideas to me. Someone here (unfortunately I can't recall who at the moment) suggested Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven, and Anthony Peratt's work too. I ordered Alfven's book and it literally blew my mind. It made so much more sense to me than LCDM, and it was so much more consistent with my studies of solar satellite imagery. I also read Scott's book, and materials by written/produced by Thornhill and by Halton Arp. They ultimately opened up my mind to a myriad of new possibilities and new ideas.

In the ensuing years, it's quite clear that I absolutely did step into the middle of an ongoing war/conflict that started *long* before I even heard of these ideas. What shocked me however was the vitriol and bitterness I experienced at the hands of the haters. It really has never made any sense to me. I've personally read *many* cosmology models over the years, most that I didn't care for, but it never occurred to me to crusade against any of them publicly.

The process of enduring all those personal attacks by the "haters" ultimately backfired in it's effect on me personally. The EU/PC haters created their own worst enemy in terms of my motivation to publicly discuss these ideas on the internet. They've also motivated me to point out the numerous and serious problems with LCDM, not just to discuss the EU/PC model or just my solar ideas as I had originally intended. In short, they created a "soldier" in that ongoing war they started out of someone who was once just "scientifically curious" about Birkeland's work and his solar model. They really didn't achieve anything good (from their perspective) by attacking me as a person, or by intentionally misrepresenting my statements on the internet. They just made me mad, and they motivated me to further educate myself on these topics. That could not have been their intent, but that was the net effect of all the vitriol they hurled at me.

I still don't understand the blatant misrepresentation of EU/PC theory by the very vocal EU/PC hater posse. IMO they only make themselves look unprofessional and totally ignorant of alternative ideas. I"m sure that dishonest behavior does sway a few folks from exploring EU/PC theory further, and maybe that's their whole intent, but at what price to their professional reputation? By hiding behind anonymous handles they can mitigate a lot of the professional blow-back, but they all know each other even if we don't know all of their names. It's still very unprofessional and it's still scientifically unethical behavior. I don't think they're doing themselves any favors within their own community in terms of their reputation. They're *definitely* doing their profession a major *disservice* when they come out of the closet and use their real names and *blatantly misrepresent* the facts. That just makes their whole industry look corrupt and ignorant. I really don't understand why anyone would even do such an irrational thing. Admittedly it's only a tiny fraction of astronomers that engage themselves in such unethical behavior, but they are a very vocal and very evangelical minority, and none of the other so called "professionals" ever even try to set them straight, so it still reflects very badly on the whole industry.

[Webbman]

they got you to make this thread.

that is the logic.

[ElecGeekMom]

IMHO they know it's a better explanation than what they espouse, but it's too empowering and approachable for the average citizen scientist. They don't want word to get out about that.

If they don't keep hammering away at their occult theories that don't really make sense to anyone who hasn't paid their dues and invested years in "training" (brainwashing?) at their institutions, then their livelihood will be endangered.

It's that old "priesthood" con in modern garb.

[Michael Mozina]

IMHO they know it's a better explanation than what they espouse, but it's too empowering and approachable for the average citizen scientist. They don't want word to get out about that.

If they don't keep hammering away at their occult theories that don't really make sense to anyone who hasn't paid their dues and invested years in "training" (brainwashing?) at their institutions, then their livelihood will be endangered.

It's that old "priesthood" con in modern garb.

I tend to think you're absolutely right. If you haven't checked out that thread I stared on Eric Lerner's new paper, I highly recommend it. He tested both the expansion and static models and even *with* 4 ad hoc metaphysical entities, LCDM failed to correctly the explain the data. Lerner zeroed in on their galaxy evolution claims, and showed how poorly they match the data, but essentially it's a problem related to their interpretation of redshift. The fact he got his newest paper published in a reputable peer reviewed astronomy publication is likely to create quite a stir.

http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=17023

IMO LCDM's days are numbered. It's just not a good model due to the numerous ad-hoc metaphysical constructs and it doesn't jive with much if any data. It's failed more 'tests' than it's ever passed. I think the mainstream is starting to get nervous.

[Zyxzevn]

I think the "logic" is a bit more complex.

The students and public are being brainwashed in that idea that our "good scientists" know
everything. And that there are just some doubts about some philosophical aspects of physics.
Like the existence of invisible things.
And most real-world scientists also believe that, except for the
area that they are specialized in.
Because they find out that there is much more to the real world than theory.

They believe that the 100 years old theories about the Sun and universe are "facts".
They just need extra parameters to fit the curves.
While they can not see that adding parameters is already a failure of the theory.

Other theories are all considered false or pseudo-science (which is in their mind another
word for nonsense). So alternatives have to undergo a long way before they are
even seen as alternatives.

The Electric universe also existed 100s of years ago and before that. Especially when
electricity was first invented. But we learned that the situation is much more complex.

But strangely, instead of revising the theories with the new data, all theories
with electricity were dumped.
The scientists went fully nuclear and only temperature was now
causing the solar spectrum. While ignoring everything we
actually know of thermodynamics.

And when the electromagnetism was rediscovered again on the sun
the scientists who clearly knew nothing about electromagnetism,
created their own impossible theories.

But why is it so hard for these scientists to see how wrong they are?
They have lost their exploring spirit and all sense of healthy scepticism.

Maths and models are ways to describe the world, but somehow many
have gone religious and think that the maths and models ARE the world
in perfection.

Coming from a practical physics university background, I learn more and more
of how astronomers have lost all touch with reality, and have build
their own theoretical imaginary world.


It only looks OK, if you don't look at the details.

[ElecGeekMom]

"But why is it so hard for these scientists to see how wrong they are?
They have lost their exploring spirit and all sense of healthy scepticism."

Indeed!

It seems like they're like housebroken pets who see any encroachers as enemies first.

They must do their masters' bidding first of all.

[Metryq]

"There is no spoon."

[Webbman]

sooner or later you'll have no choice but to accept that they are con men/gangsters. They work for agendas and not ideas. If they had any science they wouldn't share it with you.

you will never ever be able to reason with them and since nothing can be done about them ignoring their offerings is the best way to shut them down.

so everytime you talk about them, good or bad, you work for them.

[Maol]

Common everyday ambihelical hex nut. Used to only be available in Whitworth and used for leaking steam but nowadays Metric and others are becoming common. You get them from the same people as provide the Dual-Polarity bar magnets that have N & S at each end.

[Corpuscles]

I can appreciate why a typical astronomer might initially scoff at a new cosmology theory that they don't understand, and I can appreciate their motives for trying to defend the LCDM model when questions about it are raised on various forums. Those seem like typical and normal human reactions in fact. I've experienced that kind of process many times around the internet. In my experience, most such conversations proceed pretty smoothly. Even if we don't ultimately agree with each other's position, the conversations are typically amicable and they are usually focused on the subject matter itself. Such conversations tend to run their course after awhile. Even if no minds are changed in the conversation, a good exchange of information tends to take place. Those kinds of "typical' interactions make perfect logical sense to me.

What I *do not* understand is why a few very vocal individuals have taken it upon themselves to crusade *against* EU/PC theory on the internet, typically by *misrepresenting* the models themselves, and typically by attacking the *individual* rather than attacking and debating the ideas that are being discussed. That just seems like childish nonsense to me. I suppose that there's no need to "name names", since we've all bumped heads with them somewhere on the internet. There aren't that many of them in my experience, probably less than a dozen, but they are rather vocal. They're also quite "evangelical' in the sense that they repeat that attack the messenger mentality, and they misrepresent EU/PC ideas everywhere they go.

I simply don't understand the logic behind that irrational behavior. I'm sure that all astronomers have a vested interest in defending the LCMD model, and I'm sure they may even be motivated to actively reject a model that they don't like for some reason. What I don't "relate' to however, is what motivates them to *misrepresent* the models, and what motivates them to attack *people* rather than ideas. That's just irrational behavior IMO. The misrepresentation aspect tends to shock me the most. I really didn't expect to see that type of highly unethical and unprofessional behavior from so called "scientists". I just "assumed" that most scientists had an open mind and have a more 'mature' attitude when it comes to ideas that conflict with their world views.

I first noticed that irrational behavior at Bad Astronomy (now Cosmoquest) while I was discussing Birkeland's solar theories there about 12 years ago. At the time I had read Birkeland's work, but I had not even heard of EU/PC theory. I had not read Alfven's work, or Peratt's work, or Lerner's work or Scott's work, nor read any of the books on this topic. I didn't even know that there *was* a cosmology theory called EU/PC theory. The moment however that I began to discuss the electrical aspects of Birkeland's cathode model and his lab experiments in relationship to solar physics, several of the EU/PC "haters" as I now call them came unglued and instantly became belligerent. Every attempt that I made to "explain" the model that I was trying to present at BA/CQ based on satellite imagery was met with childish personal insults, and an endless parade of strawman arguments that weren't even *remotely* consistent with my statements. They spent far more time and effort intentionally *misrepresenting* my statements than actually listening to them and responding in a logical manner. They also began to instantly associate me with 'Electric Universe crackpots/cranks/nutters" even though I'd never even heard of that term prior to that conversation. I felt like i had stepped into the middle of an ongoing war that began *long* before my involvement in the process.

The "net effect" of that conversation at Bad Astronomy on me personally was to pique my interest in what they were calling "Electric Universe theory". At the time I had no idea what they were even talking about. I eventually got curious so I came over here to Thunderbolts and asked some questions about which books and papers i could read that would explain the underlying cosmology ideas to me. Someone here (unfortunately I can't recall who at the moment) suggested Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven, and Anthony Peratt's work too. I ordered Alfven's book and it literally blew my mind. It made so much more sense to me than LCDM, and it was so much more consistent with my studies of solar satellite imagery. I also read Scott's book, and materials by written/produced by Thornhill and by Halton Arp. They ultimately opened up my mind to a myriad of new possibilities and new ideas.

In the ensuing years, it's quite clear that I absolutely did step into the middle of an ongoing war/conflict that started *long* before I even heard of these ideas. What shocked me however was the vitriol and bitterness I experienced at the hands of the haters. It really has never made any sense to me. I've personally read *many* cosmology models over the years, most that I didn't care for, but it never occurred to me to crusade against any of them publicly.

The process of enduring all those personal attacks by the "haters" ultimately backfired in it's effect on me personally. The EU/PC haters created their own worst enemy in terms of my motivation to publicly discuss these ideas on the internet. They've also motivated me to point out the numerous and serious problems with LCDM, not just to discuss the EU/PC model or just my solar ideas as I had originally intended. In short, they created a "soldier" in that ongoing war they started out of someone who was once just "scientifically curious" about Birkeland's work and his solar model. They really didn't achieve anything good (from their perspective) by attacking me as a person, or by intentionally misrepresenting my statements on the internet. They just made me mad, and they motivated me to further educate myself on these topics. That could not have been their intent, but that was the net effect of all the vitriol they hurled at me.

I still don't understand the blatant misrepresentation of EU/PC theory by the very vocal EU/PC hater posse. IMO they only make themselves look unprofessional and totally ignorant of alternative ideas. I"m sure that dishonest behavior does sway a few folks from exploring EU/PC theory further, and maybe that's their whole intent, but at what price to their professional reputation? By hiding behind anonymous handles they can mitigate a lot of the professional blow-back, but they all know each other even if we don't know all of their names. It's still very unprofessional and it's still scientifically unethical behavior. I don't think they're doing themselves any favors within their own community in terms of their reputation. They're *definitely* doing their profession a major *disservice* when they come out of the closet and use their real names and *blatantly misrepresent* the facts. That just makes their whole industry look corrupt and ignorant. I really don't understand why anyone would even do such an irrational thing. Admittedly it's only a tiny fraction of astronomers that engage themselves in such unethical behavior, but they are a very vocal and very evangelical minority, and none of the other so called "professionals" ever even try to set them straight, so it still reflects very badly on the whole industry.

Hi Michael

I am now an infrequent visitor to this site. However occasionally I read with interest your somewhat prolific refutations of LCDM model or mainstream views in general.

However much of the nature of this thread and your comments are attacking individuals and is your personal perspective. Therefore it is impossible to address unless you as a person are included in the response you seek.

Here goes.... I think you are being hypocritical!

On some visits here I note thread after thread made by you , addressing critically some dude you argue with for some weird reason on a 'Christian' forum. Specific negative remarks about that person or persons.

If you are distressed that individuals "misrepresent" EU/PC theory then that might be valid if there was a cohesive single theory. However we all know there is no such thing!

One of the best things to happen to this Thunderbolts project was Bob Johnsons challenge about a cathode or anode sun? You will have your view others a different opposite one and some cannot make any sense of the source of the external currents and reason for them.

You and the members leaders attack others ( mainstream) position you ought not be surprised there is some reaction . Where a proposition is solely the unsupported or poorly supported opinion of an individual then the individual and the viewpoint are synonymous.

Yes much of mainstream is nonsense glaring problems. The only solution is for EU/PC proponents to come up with a better experimentally confirmed thoroughly consistent alternative. Much of EU is simply criticising and guessing based on an inadequate understanding of electricity itself.
Where you around when the thread "What is charge?" was debated years ago. What in your opinion is it exactly?
Of course it does not enhance EU acceptance to mesh it with a weird view of mythology and a Saturn cosmology.
That is not science it is fantasy resembling a religious cult directed at inadequately scientifically educated
groupies.

I would be interested in your exact detailed thorough one and only valid explaination of EU/PC theory so that it has a basis forevermore , NOT to be inadvertently "misinterpreted"

As you know I am not in the group you complain about, but rather ,support many components of the vague theory you call EU.
I hope that helps
Cheers

[Zyxzevn]

If you are distressed that individuals "misrepresent" EU/PC theory then that might be valid if there was a cohesive single theory. However we all know there is no such thing!

There are different levels, reaching from purely mainstream to seeing electro-magnetism in everything.
The latter is more a philosophy than applied science.

Let me try to describe these levels:

LEVEL 1 - Keep all theories

1) Drop Magnetic reconnection, which is not even fully accepted by hardcore astronomers.
Also drop frozen magnetic fields. It is lacking reality. Replace it with an accurate model that
reflects the maxwell equations, and maybe a bit of relativity.
With a bit of appllied scientific background you can recognize most "flux lines" as electrical currents.
Birkeland and Alfven already saw this.

2) Influence of plasma in space. The concentration of plasma may be much higher, and/or
concentrated at certain places. This can cause localized redshifts that is now seen as clouds
of dark energy in mainstream science. And it may be the missing mass that could
the missing dark matter. Note that the concentration of this varies, so its effect can be
greater than just an average.

3) Drop the bad mainstream physics of the Sun. Robitaille has already a
long list of wrongs with the Sun's mainstream model. He has a good channel
that explains it in ways even astronomers can understand.
(it is a lot easier with a fresh or open mind)

LEVEL 2 - Maybe we made some small mistakes

1) Sapphire : In laboratory, double layers can cause strong electrical fields in plasma.
Many mainstream theories on plasma need to be revised.

2) A lot of the Zeeman effect (magnetic field) that is observed, might actually be the Stark effect
(electric field). In my opinion the strengths of the magnetic fields are probably small,
but some here still defend the presence of strong magnetic fields.

3) Our solar physics needs to be revised. A lot. The sun clearly has electrical activity on its surface.

4) Comets are not dirty snowballs. There are electrochemical processes going on. There is no Oort-cloud.

5) Plasma currents can reach far in space. They only become visible when the current is high
enough to free electrons.

6) The Cosmic Background radiation is caused by point-sources, and earth. This can be found
by using the accurate data from the plank-satellite.

7) Kirchhoffs law only applies to a specialized case and is an oversimplification. Radiation is much more complex.

8) Electrical charges and currents may help to start star formation.

LEVEL 3 - We made some big mistakes
(<-- Michael is here, I think)

1) Redshifts might not be attributed expansion/ inflation. Plasma is capable of producing redshifts in laboratories
already. This area is totally under-researched. Space is flat, and lambda is zero.
The whole inflation is just a mirage. It explains a lot of things better, but many astronomers will rather hang themselves than accept such a theoretical failure.

2) Solar activity can influence weather and earthquakes. Currently this is thought as a magnetic connection,
by the researchers. But it is better explained with electric currents coming from the sun, since
they can bridge any distances.

3) The fusion on the sun partially caused by an electrical process.

4) The accretion disk is a wrong model. Galaxies and planetary systems are in a plane due to
electromagnetic forces.

5) A lot of evidence in astronomy is caused by bias and not by actual evidence, and has to be revisited.

LEVEL 4 - We were wrong

1) Black holes do not exist. They are not a "hole in space/time". Something else is in the centre of galaxies.

2) Einstein's rings and crosses are just caused by plasma.

3) The evolution of stars and star-systems is different.

4) Galaxies have giant Birkeland currents in them that create new stars and cause dark matter acceleration.

LEVEL 5 - Major theories fail

1) Stephen Crothers: General relativity is inconsistent, and uses maths in a wrong way.

2) Weather and climate is strongly influenced by Solar electrical activity.

LEVEL 6 - New theories needed (<-I am now here)

1) General relativity needs to be replaced with something else, certain observations are wrong.

2) Most mainstream astronomy models need revision.

3) Strong electrical plasma currents have been active on planets during plasma instabilities.


LEVEL 7 - Philosophical - Electric everything?
(<--Walthorn is here, I think)

1) Gravity may be electric related, maybe this can cause variations in gravity.

2) Strong cosmic electrical phenomena have recently been active in Human history.

3) Planets may be remains of old stars.

LEVEL 8 - Other philosophical theories

1) Eternal universe

2) Atomic model needs revision.

3) Strong electric currents in the galaxy that influence the sun directly

4) Particles (or fields) that go faster than light

5) Other ideas about life (mostly electric).

6) Dynamic aether varations? Webers relativity?

7) Do we need quantum physics?

The end

Most astronomers start from below, and use these weird theories as a stroman against the Electric Universe.
But a more exploring person, may start from the top and slowly work his/her way down-wards.
And stop when it does not seem right any more.

Then we have discussions on the forum, about places where we have different ideas.
For example: I am criticizing some electric gravity models, but I also strongly criticize
the mainstream Sun models.

While I used to believe in all mainstream models, and even promoted them on this forum,
I have learned to doubt most of it.
That is because after looking into the details and actual observations,
I found that the mainstream models are usually just a nice presentation with no actual contents.
The observations are often biased via bad statistics and cherry-picking.
The maths is often obscured and oversimplified.
The actual maths is too complex and has too many parameters and unsolved/unknown variables.
The base-theories are often mixed with religious-like believes.
And the derived theories are mixed with systematic errors.
Finally, the papers themselves are just popular science articles, promoting a popular statement.

Solution

This is all not just with astronomy.
But because astronomy lacks laboratory verification,
it has fully grown out of hand.

If you remove all astronomy theories that have no laboratory verification,
and add theories that do have laboratory verification,
you get the theories on which the Electrical Universe is based.

[Michael Mozina]

Hi Michael

I am now an infrequent visitor to this site. However occasionally I read with interest your somewhat prolific refutations of LCDM model or mainstream views in general.

However much of the nature of this thread and your comments are attacking individuals and is your personal perspective. Therefore it is impossible to address unless you as a person are included in the response you seek.

Here goes.... I think you are being hypocritical!

Ok. Thanks for sharing.

FYI, I specifically did not target any specific individuals in this thread, but I did point out some specific *behaviors* that I have a problem with, specifically the *blatant misrepresentation* of various EU/PC models, such as the now infamous 'no neutrino' claims, the new "excess gamma ray" claims, the nonsense about EU/PC solar models predicting an non thermal spectrum, and virtually every comment I've ever made on Birkeland's cathode solar model. This also includes erroneous statements like the ever popular: '"There's no math to support EU/PC theory", apparently because the people in question have simply never bothered to read any of Alfven's hundred+ papers, his book, Peratt's papers and book, Birkeland's work, Bruce's work, or Lerner's papers.

I must admit to having "attacked" the LCDM model pretty consistently, but typically my comments and criticism are typically focused on the "beliefs" associated with the LCDM model, not people. Admittedly however, there is at least one individual that I've been rather "blunt' about in terms of their unethical public behaviors. Overall however, that *pales* in comparison to all the "trash talking" that goes on in the EU/PC hater community, typically while using anonymous handles, while attacking Thornhill, Scott, Peratt, myself and many others in our community *by name*.

I think there there may be some truth to your hypocrisy claim in the sense that I have publicly criticized the LCDM model, rather than simply adopted a "live and let live" attitude and focused exclusively upon supporting EU/PC models. In that sense I've become a relatively vocal public critic of the LCDM model in the same sense that some folks choose to publicly criticize EU/PC theory.

That choice on my part however took place only *after* my Bad Astronomy experience and only after being subjected to a string of hostile attacks, merely for suggesting that electricity plays a larger role in events in space that the mainstream seems to assume. After being put through the Spanish Inquisition routine at CQ/BA, I was curious to see if LCMD would hold up to that kind of scrutiny, and it simply doesn't.

On some visits here I note thread after thread made by you , addressing critically some dude you argue with for some weird reason on a 'Christian' forum. Specific negative remarks about that person or persons.

I've pointed out some rather lame arguments by many posters on many forums, including CF and ISF, blogs and Reddit posts too. Again however, with the exception of one specific individual most of my comments have been focused on the beliefs, not the individuals.

If you are distressed that individuals "misrepresent" EU/PC theory then that might be valid if there was a cohesive single theory. However we all know there is no such thing!

That suggests to me that you've either never read Alfven's book for yourself and/or Peratt's book for yourself, or you are confusing the difference between a *cosmology* model and solar theories (plural). AFAIK, only Alfven, Peratt and Lerner have mathematically described the "cosmology" side of EU/PC theory.

There's a lot *less* agreement once we start talking about solar theory, but that's not really a "cosmology" model.

I would tend to agree that EU/PC theory can describe an expansion scenario as well as a static universe scenario, so iit's not as "rigidly defined" a say LCDM. I see that as a strength however, not a weakness.

One of the best things to happen to this Thunderbolts project was Bob Johnsons challenge about a cathode or anode sun? You will have your view others a different opposite one and some cannot make any sense of the source of the external currents and reason for them.

It's certainly true that an EU/PC proponent has to "pick a solar model" to work with. Alfven's homopolar generator model is a uniquely different model from Juergen's anode model, and both are different from Birkeland's cathode model. That does create some amount of "confusion" when trying to learn what EU/PC theory is about, and the range of ideas it contains.

I can certainly defend Birkeland's internally powered cathode model, which is in fact consistent with what we observe in terms of cosmic rays, and solar wind composition an direction of particle flow. That is why I support Birkeland's model rather than any other solar model.

You and the members leaders attack others ( mainstream) position you ought not be surprised there is some reaction .

I welcome anyone attacking the *ideas* presented in EU/PC theory, so long as it's an honest criticism. I do however resent the constant attack on *people* rather than the ideas, and the blatant *misrepresentation* of EU/PC models, like that no neutrino nonsense. That kind of behavior is simply unethical and it's very unprofessional.

Where a proposition is solely the unsupported or poorly supported opinion of an individual then the individual and the viewpoint are synonymous.

No, that's not true. It's fair to claim an idea is not well supported. It's not fair to claim a person is a "crackpot", a "loon", a "crank", a "nutter", etc. That's not a scientific argument that a blatant personal attack.

Yes much of mainstream is nonsense glaring problems. The only solution is for EU/PC proponents to come up with a better experimentally confirmed thoroughly consistent alternative.

Been there, done that on some levels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

SAFIRE experiments also produce a working hot corona, something the mainstream has *never* done and will never do with their solar model in a real lab experiment. Show me a 'magnetic reconnection' experiment that doesn't ultimately run on "electricity" that is able to sustain plasma at high temperatures for hours and days on end.

Much of EU is simply criticising and guessing based on an inadequate understanding of electricity itself.

That's just silly as that video on Birkeland's model clearly demonstrates. It actually works in the lab. You can't say that for the standard solar model. It can't actually produce a working corona, aurora, polar jets, electron beams, etc in a real lab experiment.

Where you around when the thread "What is charge?" was debated years ago. What in your opinion is it exactly?

Never saw it so I have no opinion about it. I did experiment a discussion at JREF/ISF on "magnetic reconnection" however and that conversation was simply absurd. I'm *still* waiting to see a mathematical proof of their claim in terms of a formula to describe a nonzero rate of "reconnection' without plasma or plasma particle acceleration. The whole crowd at ISF evidently can't tell the difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, and the plasma particle acceleration process know as "magnetic reconnection".

Of course it does not enhance EU acceptance to mesh it with a weird view of mythology and a Saturn cosmology.
That is not science it is fantasy resembling a religious cult directed at inadequately scientifically educated
groupies.

I would tend to agree, but then I don't think it helps LCDM theory to be associated with Biblical YEC creationism either, but I've seen folks try to tie them together anyway. I don't blame the LCDM model for those behaviors anymore than I blame Alfven PC model for the Velkovsky stuff.

I would be interested in your exact detailed thorough one and only valid explaination of EU/PC theory so that it has a basis forevermore , NOT to be inadvertently "misinterpreted"

I think you're already operating on an invalid assumption. I don't have to "pretend" to know every detail about the universe down to the last millisecond like LCMD proponents. They don't really "know" anything anyway since 95 percent of their model is based on placeholder terms for human ignorance, and it fails more "tests" than it passes.

I'm quite happy living with some ambiguity and simply applying circuit theory to events in space. I'd be fine with a static universe as described by Lerner's last paper, or an expansion oriented universe so long as it doesn't require metaphysics.

As you know I am not in the group you complain about, but rather ,support many components of the vague theory you call EU.
I hope that helps
Cheers

I'm happy to hear that. I personally think it's "ok" to have some debate and some amount of ambiguity.

[timeworm]

I have been wondering about these questions for quite some time and the only way I have been able to make some sense to it has been via somewhat extreme Kuhnian approach. Extreme because in Kuhnian view anomalies are supposed to throw the governing paradigm into crisis, but somehow the mathemagical shield surrounding today's cosmology is able to absorb/deflect everything.

I believe that at the core of the issues lies Incommensurability, not only is it difficult to make sure that the concepts used in these debates are commensurable but even the overall value systems can be vastly different. What can seem very relevant to the other paradigm might have very little meaning to the other; the roots of the paradigm run so deep that one cannot truly uproot oneself enough to actually fully understand the other's perspective.

I recall quite a many years ago a 'challenger' appeared on this forum who opened up several threads on various topics in order to challenge EU/PC views. Eventually, some of the EU/PC overlords descended from their electric heaven to propose an official, moderated debate with the 'challenger' (I think s/he was called Nereid?). What happened next was, imho, a great example of the incommensurability as the debate didn't proceed because the two sides (paradigms) could not even come up with a common ground/question to base the debate around.

I have followed Michael's debates for years (Many thanks for all entertainment! I have enjoyed dozens of morning sipping on my morning coffee and reading your debates across various forums.) There is certainly some who resort to pretty low form personal attacks towards you and various members of EU/PC community, but I don't want to believe that there is any notorious agenda behind that, just rude people.

I believe that it is some form of Kuhnian paradigm and the concept of incommensurability that prevents them from even seeing other viewpoints. It is not that they do it on purpose, they do it because the paradigm tells them that it is the correct way to do it; they don't see EU/PC arguments as valid arguments. To them, EU/PC asks wrong, meaningless questions; to them, EU/PC arguments are inherently flawed and no amount of convincing will be enough. If nothing else works they well resort to some ideal of scientific knowledge and demand that EU/PC answers questions that the EU/PC paradigm won't allow it to do - questions that are not even valid questions.

But yes, it does require a somewhat extreme version of Kuhn's concept of scientific knowledge to work. Something in the modern physical science is able to bend the rules of rationality that, I believe, Kuhn's original theory is based on. Concepts and observations have become more and more theory-laden and even some of the instruments themselves have been built to fit/serve the paradigm as computers crunch the data obtained based on what the science supposes the data is about.

Ah, as a final note. I think the general belief is that if there was something seriously wrong with the standard model (or any theory), the hundreds and thousands of very capable and educated scientists would jump to point the flaws out. No doubt there is a line of Nobel prices waiting for whoever would be able to bring on the new era of science. The lack of such attacks against the theory is proof enough that it is working and the 'small' flaws will be filled in sooner or later.

Kuhnian revolution is late and I wonder why. But at the same time, I am sure that we get to see it happen and I personally look forward to Michael's tour of "I told you so" across the internet.

[Michael Mozina]

I have been wondering about these questions for quite some time and the only way I have been able to make some sense to it has been via somewhat extreme Kuhnian approach. Extreme because in Kuhnian view anomalies are supposed to throw the governing paradigm into crisis, but somehow the mathemagical shield surrounding today's cosmology is able to absorb/deflect everything.

I believe that at the core of the issues lies Incommensurability, not only is it difficult to make sure that the concepts used in these debates are commensurable but even the overall value systems can be vastly different. What can seem very relevant to the other paradigm might have very little meaning to the other; the roots of the paradigm run so deep that one cannot truly uproot oneself enough to actually fully understand the other's perspective.

I tend to agree with everything that you said. I also think that you hit the nail on the head with the "mathamagical shield" comment. LCDM proponents do indeed love their math, but unfortunately it's mostly based on metaphysical constructs and pseudoscience, yet they still seem to have a real ego about it. Once one loses one's 'faith' in the validity of their metaphysical constructs however, their magical math just isn't particularly compelling, or impressive anymore. It just looks to be completely contrived, and 'made up" to me now.

The mainstream does however seem to pride themselves on their prowess with math, and they use it as a psychological shield and a crutch of sorts. For instance, I've heard Nereid make erroneous comments about EU/PC theory having "no mathematical support", even though the reality is actually very different. There's *lots* of math associated with EU/PC theory. It's certainly not the *same* type of math, and it not applied to the same topics that the mainstream loves to discuss (like the CMB), but even Birkeland included lots of math in his published work over a century ago. Alfven published over 100 paper and and book and I've never even seen anyone find a single error in his math or his papers. Peratt wrote a much better book in terms of the explaining the math in great detail, and he even built computer models which are based upon that math. He even showed that they produce a number of similarities with the real universe. Learner's work is also *loaded* with math. Scott has produced some good mathematical work too. Bruce provided math too.

I think you're also correct that there's a very large chasm between the two communities in the way they think and the way that they view the universe.

LCDM is typically presented in a very "formal" way. One is pretty much 'told' what to think, "or else" they don't pass the class or get their papers published, or get a job in the industry. There's a sense of 'certainty' associate with LCDM, certainly in the process of a "bang" which is based upon a certainty of their presumption of a correct interpretation of redshift. There's also a strong sense of certainly with respect to the existence of exotic forms of matter. The concept of "space expansion' is pretty much ingrained dogma (with absolute certainty) at this point in spite of a complete *lack* of any laboratory evidence to support any of their primary claims. LCDM proponents think they know when the universe began, how it started 'expanding', and how it evolved over time from the first few milliseconds of creation. They're certain that they properly figured out their ratios of dark matter, dark energy, and ordinary matter down to the last percent point or two.

The EU/PC community on the other hand is much more comfortable with ambiguity. We've got three different basic solar models to choose from in fact, and numerous subsets as well. EU/PC allows for an expansion configuration or a static universe. The EU/PC model is a much more fluid, and less "structured" way of looking at the universe at this point. We don't have to believe that we have everything all figured out yet down to the last few hundred thousand years, and the processes that took place down to a few milliseconds.

I don't think LCDM proponents can handle that kind of ambiguity, although they seem fine not knowing what "dark matter' might be, and without having any explanation of a source of dark energy, or a way to explain how it remained constant over exponential increases in volume. Their "math' however is all figure out, down to the last couple of milliseconds.

I think that's partially why the mainstream doesn't "like" the math that is associated with EU/PC theory. It's not as pretentious as they're used to.

In reality however, the mainstream really understand very little about the universe. A full 95 percent of the model amounts to placeholder term for human ignorance, not 'empirical knowledge".

There's just not a lot of middle ground between the two competing ways of looking at the universe.

[Zyxzevn]

Been there, done that on some levels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

I think this is Michael's version of Rick-Rolling.