Multi-point EU critique: can these points be addressed?

[davesmith_au]

Quite frankly I don't understand why people would ask anyone to waste their time answering pseudo-skeptics. This has been covered a number of times before, but still gets brought to the fore on occasion.

The first website referred in this thread, by someone calling themselves "PsyGirl" is typical of such pseudoskepticism. Lay down a few incorrect or generalized assertions about what EU claims, then "refute" this nonsense with some nonsense of your own. More an exercise in ego stroking than science of any kind.

Such pseudo-criticism is usually accompanied by nonsense like this:

It doesn’t matter too much what the modes are, the point is that the electric universe theory was based on outdated information from 1976. Very poor research indeed!

Is not much of today's space science based on the work of one Albert Einstein from around 100 years ago? Please note this is not a criticism of Einstein, just a criticism of poor argumentation...

And don't even get me started on Bridgman (dealingwithcreationinastronomy). Those who have any real interest in his ramblings can also find Don Scott's rebuttal if they choose to look.

Interestingly phyllotaxis asks (admirably) that no "ad hominem" be used here, but fails to indicate that Bridgman uses this tactic constantly throughout his "critiques".

To borrow a phrase from Wikipedia's Phaedrus7 (Leroy Ellenberger) - "... and so it goes ..."

[phyllotaxis]

You are of course 100% correct.
The funny thing is, these guys send me nothing that ISN'T peppered with snarky and petulant generalizations, personal attacks, oblique arguments, and so on. It pleases them to hear these raging attacks, and that's enough for them.

But I look at it like this: this is everything they have.

I want to talk about science and technology and engineering and such.
REAL science.
Since this admittedly poisoned, vitriolic commentary is presented in nearly every 'rebuttal', I just read around it and try to find facts to compare.

It is more important to me to learn WHAT the specific dismissals of EU are being relied upon, for only then can the actual facts be clarified and their arguments, where incorrect, can be clearly and consistently disproven.

It is exasperating to read and stomach, but it's necessary to get to the heart of the data.

Hopefully, all this results in a better explanation of EU work, which will enable us all to make stronger inroads in the long run.

That's the goal I have, and I hope it isn't too off-putting to suffer the fools that are quick to attack from a position of ignorance whe,the prize is learning to eliminate their confusion and dismissals.

Kindest regards-

[orrery]

Anything written by Nereid can immediately be tossed out <moderator edit>. She has admittedly never even read Electric Sky or any other EU work but merely functions on the hearsay of astronomer priests who are likewise just as ignorant. Nereid <moderator edit> can easily be backed into a corner using the work of Ari Brynjolfsson and Einsteins paper refuting the existence of Black Holes. Likewise, Nereid and critics like her are easily handed their hat by adopting the arguments of Eric J Lerner at his Big Bang Never Happened site. Other resources can be gathered at the /r/plasmaCosmology subreddit where these pseudo skeptics and defenders of church doctrine are neither welcomed or tolerated.

<moderator edit>

[nick c]

orrery,
Opponents of the EU may utilize ad hominem attacks, but that is their problem not ours.
On this forum, name calling is not considered acceptable.
Rules and Guidelines
thanks,
Nick

[Lloyd]

Phyllo said: It is more important to me to learn WHAT the specific dismissals of EU are being relied upon, for only then can the actual facts be clarified and their arguments, where incorrect, can be clearly and consistently disproven.
- It is exasperating to read and stomach, but it's necessary to get to the heart of the data.

* It seems that the education system and the science media have done a good job of turning 80 or 90% of students into loyal supporters of "consensus" science. If you read them, you will occasionally find good data, but most of the time I think you'll only find cultic drivel. And I think overcoming that initially requires the sciences of psychology and sociology, rather than the hard sciences. I think Alfred De Grazia, a behavioral scientist, was the main author or editor of "The Velikovsky Affair", a 1967 book which uncovered much of the abuse of Velikovsky by conventional scientists. Dave and Steve Talbott's magazine, Pensee', issue #7, covered many of the science media's abuses of Velikovsky after the 1974 AAAS symposium.
* Here's more from: http://www.velikovsky.info/Scientists_C ... Velikovsky.

Scientists Confront Scientists Who Confront Velikovsky (1978) is a special issue of the journal Kronos, a continuation of the earlier special issue, Velikovsky and Establishment Science (1977), both published in response to the 1974 AAAS Symposium, "Velikovsky's Challenge to Science" and the conference proceedings, Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1977 Cornell University).
- George Robert Talbott [unrelated to Dave and Steve] summarises his contribution which:
".. focuses first upon the general problem of misrepresentation of Dr. Velikovsky's thesis by some members of the academic scientific community, and totally demolishes the already dying assertion that "no real scientist agrees with Dr. Velikovsky". The author, himself conservative, does indeed agree, as do others in orthodox scientific activities. This is amply shown in [Talbott's paper] Scientists Confront Scientists Who Confront Velikovsky; and of course in the already published Kronos articles."[1]
- Talbott continues:
"What many scientists find deceitful in this Cornell publication is the pretense that scientific referees and critics are fair and objective, that the only people they attack are either "heretics" without foundation, or phonies without qualifications. As a matter of fact, they attack everyone and each other as well. Asimov properly cites the cases of Mayer and Joule who were generally ignored in relation to the prestigious academic Helmholtz, and others admit that good ideas were hooted down and mocked - but with Velikovsky the matter is "different". He is an "exoheretic" with a crackpot theory."[2]

[My emphasis.]
* You can thus see that conventional "science" isn't really entirely real science. Much of it is mere hooting and mockery, i.e. dogmatism, cultism etc.
EU Wiki
* In your opening post, you said: I wish there were a comprehensive and living "rebuttal to the rebuttals"
thread or resource around. I discussed on this forum a few years ago an idea to compose an EU encyclopedia. Ian Tresman has something close to that. But a wiki like that could be used, I believe, to post such refutations, if it seems worthwhile. I started a wiki at http://askus.wikispaces.com/ at that time and something like that could be expanded, I think. In fact, the idea for such a wiki came to me again this morning after our EU Research discussion last night. I thought such a wiki should probably be part of the same effort. So I hope to discuss that more ere long.

[phyllotaxis]

* It seems that the education system and the science media have done a good job of turning 80 or 90% of students into loyal supporters of "consensus" science. If

I think that's because they have a good narrative story that is told very early to children- even though it's built upon many esoteric, hyper-complex and contradictory "fact-like declarations"

That's an opportunity for us to exploit- their lack of Standard Model coherence and logical dissonance just reinforces that work exists that can be exposed while simultaneously offering logical, testable alternatives.

I agree that this entire electric paradigm needs more and perpetually better outlets of dissemination Lloyd. Higher-quality representations of this work, the history behind it, and most importantly, the similarity between the EU hypothetical declarations to observed results in space and in-lab can make all the difference in it's adoption by larger bodies of interested people. It would be nice to see more and more sites dedicated to this kind of work.

The underlying reason for this thread is to pin down the arguments that are used to dismiss our work- and answer them.

Having to pull a handful of refutable, testable accusations out of what really constitutes a trash-talking tantrum by some of the linked authors is below some people's chosen level of discourse, and I understand that.
But I still believe that we must engage them on the (non-personal) specific points they claim wholly refute our selected scientific worldview. In other words, turn-about is ineffective play. We must answer their questions, not their assaults.

I do not believe their accusations hold water.
The task remains ours to prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. I am not the scientist that can prove that, but I can rally efforts to try to publicize existing evidence and make sure it is improved and refined as time goes on. We can all do this, and we should make the effort to do so--to take this work to the next level, and make it a CURRENT active effort in labs and computers and satellite studies. Some of the people in this forum can be very important contributors to advancing these ideas, and I think they would celebrate the opportunity to make these contributions, and I implore them to take a more focused and progressive view of overturning this "Standard Model" dominance by removing every shadow they hide behind- by deconstructing their argument in an ever-improved way.

But never by smack-talking or venom. It shuts off 95% of the discourse and erases any credibility we carry. I know how hard it is, and if you read all my posts you'll certainly find some of my own annoyance displayed at the absurdity of the waste of time caused by these fantasy pursuits of mathematical abstractions-- but I am trying to fight honorably and with increasing focus.

We can all make a big difference by doing so

[PersianPaladin]

Mainstream astronomy is seriously deficient in empirically grounded premises, not in quantitative data.

That's a good answer to their constant complaints of insufficient "quantitative" analysis. If the premises are poppycock, then so will at least a good portion of the data.

Nobody in the EU/PC community argues that we have complete or flawless models of galactic or solar circuits. Even Hannes Alfvén often talked about the tremendous difficulty in modelling the bulk behaviour of plasma and double-layer interactions. There is evidence of their general behaviour however.

However - we have the advantage of solid qualitative explanations that have laboratory-support. We have the advantage of understanding (via established and proven electrical engineering principles) that magnetic fields are not frozen-in to localized stellar plasma or "re-connect" to form dynamic phenomena at the behest of gravity and dark energy. NASA have directly measured tornadic dark-mode currents with huge amounts of electricity entering the Earth directly from the sun. And yes, they even used the word "amps". We see stars being formed in plasma filaments in inter-stellar clouds. Our conclusions are different, but make far more logical sense. And that's just the beginning of what EU/PC has to offer with its new lens.

We don't play with black holes and "strange matter" or assume creation-stories. I would say that we have a far more humble approach to things. I'd say our approach probably scares or annoys a lot of them, as it means a lot of piles of work and careers may end up counting for almost naught. Then again - they could have some humility and gain the privilege of being part of a scientific revolution:-

http://en.zaman.com.tr/en/newsDetail_ge ... ewsId=5780

"I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives" - Leo Tolstoy.

[phyllotaxis]

Thanks for a well-reasoned and lucid contribution.

However - we have the advantage of solid qualitative explanations that have laboratory-support. We have the advantage of understanding (via established and proven electrical engineering principles) that magnetic fields are not frozen-in to localized stellar plasma or "re-connect" to form dynamic phenomena at the behest of gravity and dark energy. NASA have directly measured tornadic dark-mode currents with huge amounts of electricity entering the Earth directly from the sun. And yes, they even used the word "amps". We see stars being formed in plasma filaments in inter-stellar clouds. Our conclusions are different, but make far more logical sense. And that's just the beginning of what EU/PC has to offer with its new lens.

You know, I think it's a great thing you said there. Perhaps the biggest challenge is convincing people our lens is aimed at the same thing theirs is. I find that a common retort among 'adversarial friends' is that we're painting everything electric because that's the only color we have.

I always reply that what matters is that we are painting a picture that looks very much like reality- not an abstract thought experiment. In other words, we paint what we see-- not what we imagine.

[sjw40364]

Some science is just not science. Our entire physical laws need to be rewritten, not just continuously have corrections applied to them. Relativity is a system of mathematical corrections applied to previously incorrect mathematical equations. The very idea that one can take incorrect math, apply a few tensors and get the correct result is why theory never matches observation in this time of discovery of the space age. We need to go back over 100 years and correct the first misunderstandings before we can hope to be correct on anything.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=3&t=6374

[astro3]

I reckon there is a crucial experiment to be done. Huge underground projects have been counting solar neutrinos for years now. There are suggestions in EU articles, that their count in fact vary with the 11-year sunspot cycle. And maybe with solar flares. It seems to me that on the standard model, they come from the centre of the Sun and as such must not vary with anything going on on the surface. So if someone could get monthly neutrino counts over say 12 years from one of these labs, one could see whether it was in fact varying with the 11 year cycle. If it did, that would tend to argue that it was more of a surface phenomenon.

[Morphix]

I asked for answers relative to the sun and neutrinos at another post http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=3&t=9695 and did not get what I thought to be good answers, at least not so far.

I think responders to this post from 2012 did a decent job. But what about the influence of magnetic fields falling off much more quicly than gravity with distance?

[Siggy_G]

I think responders to this post from 2012 did a decent job. But what about the influence of magnetic fields falling off much more quicly than gravity with distance?

There are several points in that original post that ought to be addressed. I haven't been active the last year with catching up with Bridgman's posts, but off the top of my head, the assumptions used for the calculations aren't correct in regards to what the acceleration/velocity of the electrons and their density (i.e. the current density) must be throughout the IPM. Since the resulting numbers go pear-shaped from these erroneous assumptions, his somewhat ridiculing follow-up text is non-applicable. But his attempt is fine. Of course, a more detailed answer and an attempt of calculations/scenarios are owed. It would be interesting to detail such out in the form of papers, rather then lengthy posts though.

But what about the influence of magnetic fields falling off much more quicly than gravity with distance?

I believe it's the other way around. Gravity attenuates with a spherical 1/r^2 whilst magnetic fields attenuates with 1/r in scenarios where there are axial electric currents or "magnetic flux tubes": two names for the same entity. Anthony Peratt has elaborated on this (I don't have the sources at hand ATM). So for large scale formations in dusty plasmas, the influence of electric currents and magnetic fields overrules gravity. They initiate bulk movements that sets the velocity and rotational foundation for the later gravitational collapses of heavier formations. How external magnetic fields and electric currents influence objects that already are massive is more diffiucult to answer IMO i.e. numerous scenarios and possible mechanisms.

[Morphix]

I think responders to this post from 2012 did a decent job. But what about the influence of magnetic fields falling off much more quicly than gravity with distance?

There are several points in that original post that ought to be addressed. I haven't been active the last year with catching up with Bridgman's posts, but off the top of my head, the assumptions used for the calculations aren't correct in regards to what the acceleration/velocity of the electrons and their density (i.e. the current density) must be throughout the IPM. Since the resulting numbers go pear-shaped from these erroneous assumptions, his somewhat ridiculing follow-up text is non-applicable. But his attempt is fine. Of course, a more detailed answer and an attempt of calculations/scenarios are owed. It would be interesting to detail such out in the form of papers, rather then lengthy posts though.

Thanks for the explanation.

But what about the influence of magnetic fields falling off much more quicly than gravity with distance?

I believe it's the other way around. Gravity attenuates with a spherical 1/r^2 whilst magnetic fields attenuates with 1/r in scenarios where there are axial electric currents or "magnetic flux tubes": two names for the same entity. Anthony Peratt has elaborated on this (I don't have the sources at hand ATM). So for large scale formations in dusty plasmas, the influence of electric currents and magnetic fields overrules gravity. They initiate bulk movements that sets the velocity and rotational foundation for the later gravitational collapses of heavier formations. How external magnetic fields and electric currents influence objects that already are massive is more diffiucult to answer IMO i.e. numerous scenarios and possible mechanisms.

In the linked discussion that phyllotatis originally referenced atvthe start ofvthis discussion, there is a followip post as follows:

"Magnetic field strength is also a lot more significant at close distances than gravitational fields, but magnetic flux always forms closed loops in space. This means that it effectively does not follow the inverse square law, but, instead, an inverse cube law. This makes magnetic field strength drop off much, much more quickly with distance. I have two large (baseball sized) neodymium magnets that would utterly crush all the bones in your hand if you were to place them on either side of it, but at a distance of a couple of feet from each other there is no perceptible interaction.

This is why gravity dominates at cosmological distances. It follows the inverse square law and is unrestrained by any form of "antigravity" that would cancel it out."

Is this criticism off the mark because EU proponents are not speaking of magnetic field influence from one object to another object separated by a vacuum, but rather of electrical vurrents flowing in a plasma. Should EU proponents be more specific when positing the strength of elecromagnetic versus gravitational forces? What comes to mind is the EU idea, usually quoting Perrat, that electromagnetism is billions of times stronger than gravity. But in what respect and under what conditions? No sense providing EU critics with ready made straw men!

Thanks for your explanations and looking forward to your thoughts on the above.

[Siggy_G]

(referenced post) "Magnetic field strength is also a lot more significant at close distances than gravitational fields, but magnetic flux always forms closed loops in space. This means that it effectively does not follow the inverse square law, but, instead, an inverse cube law. This makes magnetic field strength drop off much, much more quickly with distance. (...)"

There are as mentioned various scenarios as derived from the Biot-Savart law as well as the configuration of poles.

The magnetic field of a circular current loop (coil) and a magnetic dipole falls of like 1/r^3.
The magnetic field of a single charge / short length current falls off at 1/r^2 (this is reflected in Coloumb's Law).
The magnetic field of a long straight current falls off like 1/r. This applies for long scale electric currents in cosmic plasmas.

The longer the current axis, the more of a cylindrical shape of the azimuthal magnetic field (with hemispherical ends). In any given cross-section along this cylindrical field the magnetic component falls off with 1/r. Double the radius = double the circumference = half the density/strength. The same goes for the force between two parallell wires each with an electric current. They attract or repell depending on the current direction and the fall off is (2pi) r.

[justcurious]

The problem with a point by point critique of this guy's writings is that, his writings are mostly rhetorical.
He packages a whole lot of assumptions and suggestions in just a few sentences.
When he refers to EU "claims", he doesn't refer to a specific person or view, but rather makes vague generalizations and refers to "they" (ie those EU people who are trying to throw physics out the door). How can you argue with a person like that? You can't have a scientific debate with fools like that and address their BS "point by point".
I think it best not to waste time with these kinds of people. The best weapon against their rhetoric is real life results (as opposed to their hot air), predictions and facts that no intelligent rational person could deny.