While I was there today, I did see a relatively new post by someone going by the handle of Graeme that I thought warranted a response. Since Koberlein banned me from his blog along with everyone else that pointed out his numerous bonehead errors, I thought I''d post my response here in the hope that Graeme eventually checks out this website again. Apparently Graeme checked out the EU/PC model at some point in the past, so it's possible that he still checks out this website occasionally. Several of his comments warranted a response IMO. You can read his whole post at the link below if you like. I simply picked out a few points that I felt were worth addressing.
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/
First off Graeme, not every EU/PC proponent thinks exactly alike, or shares exactly the same views on every possible topic related to EU/PC cosmology theory. About the only things that we share in common is that we are typically "free thinkers" who prefer an EU/PC oriented cosmology model rather than the LCDM metaphysical monstrosity that passes for science today. We typically allow ourselves to think outside of the box, and we typically reject the LCMD model of cosmology and embrace the concept that the universe is primarily electrical in nature. Those are the primary things that we have in common.13 January 2019
Now it appears to me that the EU crowd are attempting to validate Velikovsky’s nonsense. They continue to praise Velikovsky as an unsung genius.
Here are some questions for Velikovsky supporters, and by default the EU people.
I for one don't care one iota about Velikovsky or his beliefs, whereas I do support Alfven's work, Birkeland's work, Bruce''s work, Peratt's work, Lerner's work, Scott's work, and much of Thornhill's work with respect to cosmology theory. You can't really lump us all into the same category with respect to every possible belief associated with EU/PC models (plural in the case of solar theory). We are all individuals with different views on different topics. For instance, while many folks here promote and support Jeurgen's anode solar model, I personally prefer Birkeland's cathode solar model. While I don't share Dr. Scott's preference for an anode solar model, I have a great deal of respect for his work on Birkeland currents in space.
EU/PC proponents aren't all forced to think in lockstep like the Stepford wives crowd who support the LCDM nonsense. We're allowed to hold different viewpoints here and discuss our difference here openly and without hostility. If you didn't figure that out much, you apparently didn't spend much time here or explore the work of Birkeland or Bruce, or Alfven or Peratt, or Lerner, or Scott, etc. It sounds like you didn't check out the published material very much other than reading Velkovsky's book. That's a pity. There is so much more to the EU/PC cosmology model than Velikovsky. Hannes Alfven is typically credited with developing the EU/PC *cosmology* model, not Velikovsky.
Since I'm not personally a Velikovsky supporter, I'll simply skip your questions related to his beliefs and focus on the other few questions you asked.
EU doesn't reject Plate Tectonics even if some EU/PC proponents choose to do so. Alfven never once mentioned that topic in his book "Cosmic Plasma" which is typically cited as the defining book of PC/EU cosmology theory. Here's a recent article about the Earth/Space electrical interactions, but I seriously doubt they reject plate tectonics in the book described by the article. Suffice to say it's entirely possible to embrace the concept that we live in an electric universe without assuming anything about plate tectonics.2. Why does the EU reject Plate Tectonics?
https://eos.org/editors-vox/electric-cu ... n-the-show
Huh? We absolutely do see RF noise and RF output from Birkeland currents in space in virtually every radio/microwave image of the universe:3. If interplanetary/interstellar “birkeland” current exist, the why don’t we seen the signature RF noise predicted by Hannes Alfvén?
https://public.nrao.edu/radio-astronomy ... astronomy/
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubb ... les-a.html
https://www.universetoday.com/85841/bes ... hole-jets/
You can't even look the universe in radio wave and microwave wavelengths without seeing massive amounts of noise associated with the currents flowing in and around our own galaxy:
All that RF and microwave noise has to first be "stripped out" of the Planck data sets in order to determine anything about the "background" beyond our own galaxy in fact.
Your assertion that we don't see RF noise as Alfven predicted is simply horribly wrong. I really get the impression that you didn't do you homework and you didn't spend much time studying anything about EU/PC theory other than reading Velikovsky's book perhaps. That's a real pity.
I also have no idea why you would align yourself with Brian Koberlein of all people, particularly since he intentionally *misleads* everyone about EU/PC theory, even intentionally misrepresenting it's core solar predictions. For instance both of Koberlein's other two cited references in that horrible blog entry (Scott and Thornhill) both predicted and explained that fusion occurs in and around the sun which varies with the solar cycle and sunspot activity, and therefore the solar model they support must emit neutrinos. Koberlein falsely and unethically asserted that EU/PC theory predicts that the sun should emit no neutrinos based on a single statement by Findlay that is taken completely out of context. No EU/PC solar model predicts no neutrinos or a non thermal emission spectrum, or any such thing! Koberlein isn't even remotely honest, so why on Earth would you believe anything that he has to say about EU/PC theory? Oy Vey. Koberlein screwed up something as simple as the neutrino predictions of EU/PC solar models (plural). He's certainly no "expert" on EU theory, he's just an expert at spewing false misinformation related to the EU/PC topic.
FYI Graeme, It's the incorrect mainstream premise that redshift is related to "space" expansion and the incorrect premise that the mainstream baryonic mass estimation techniques based on luminosity are accurate that has kept the mainstream in the dark ages of astronomy now for over 80 years. A full 95 percent of their cosmology model is nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance. That's just dark metaphysical nonsense, not science. It's all based on two false premises. Contrary to their blatantly false claims, Edwin Hubble did *not* prove that the universe is expanding, in fact Hubble himself preferred a static universe/tired light explanation of Hubble's law, not an expansion interpretation for that phenomenon. That's false premise number one. The second major false premise is that the mainstream's baryonic mass estimates based on luminosity are correct, but more than a half dozen recent studies have all demonstrated that premise to be false too.4 February 2019
Hi Brian What is Mirza on about. Logic – incorrect premise leads to nonsense. It was the logic of Plato, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas among others that kept Europe in the Dark Ages for over 1000 years and held back science for a similar period.
The whole of the LCDM model is based entirely upon two false premises, and metaphysical nonsense, not physics.
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=15850
Sorry I couldn't respond to you on Koberlein's blog, but Koberlein had to quickly ban everyone who pointed out his BS and his blatant errors, myself included. I hope you eventually read this response to your questions and you take a closer look at Alfven's work and Birkeland's work. They're a lot more important to EU/PC cosmology theory than Velikovsky IMO.
By the way, here's a link to a recent book on the topic of EU/PC theory, along with a link the first chapter of the book. Check it out sometime. EU/PC enjoys a long history of support by many scientists and astronomers over the centuries, not just Velikovsky.
https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Electric+Cu ... 1119324492
https://media.wiley.com/product_data/ex ... 4491-8.pdf