Strike Two for Dave.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VOazE6 ... e=youtu.be

Well, Dave is now zero for two in terms of correctly representing the historical scientific facts related to EU/PC theory.

Dave seems to be showing some signs of retreat (apparently retreating deeply into his own ignorance again) by trying to differentiate between whatever Dave (personally) is describing as the "electric universe" idea, and whatever Dave is personally associating with the term "plasma cosmology", and once again he puts his foot into his mouth.

Apparently Dave is willfully or blissfully unaware of the fact the original "electric universe" concept, and it's eventual cosmological sibling called "plasma cosmology" have their roots much further back in scientific history than Wal Thornhill, Ben Davidson, and Anthony Peratt. Holy cow. Dave tries desperately to ignore the fact that Kristian Birkeland first described space as an "electric" universe, filled with flying ions and electrons, cathode suns, bathed in high speed ions which are now called cosmic rays. I hate to break it to Dave, but Kristian Birkeland predates all of us to this the topic of an electric universe by a full century, and he first described the electrified fields of space over a century ago. Dave should have discussed Birkeland in both of his videos, instead he ignored Birkeland's work almost entirely, for very obvious reasons. Birkeland doesn't fit Dave's narrative or serve his divide and conquer strategy.

Notice that Dave is shamelessly attempting to use a "divide and conquer" strategy, first by proclaiming what apparently Dave *personally* defines as 'electric universe theory" (evidently from a Wal Thornhill video on youtube), not based on any historical use of the term. Dave then does that same personal definition of terms thing again in his second installment of his personal definition of the term "plasma cosmology", which is apparently what he learned about it from another Youtube video by Ben Davidson.

Contrary to Dave's irrational assertion, at no point was "gravity' ever rejected by EU or PC theory. However, Dave personally attempts to separate them, claiming that EU theory reject gravity. Birkeland never rejected any definition of gravity that he was aware of at the time (Newton). So Dave's definition of of the term "Electric Universe" is more of a personal attack by Dave at the personal beliefs that Dave decides to lump into the term "electric universe" theory, which apparently is more of a personal attack on Dave's *misrepresentation* of Wal Thornhill's personal beliefs as far as I can tell. Dave irrationally tries to scrub the term "electric universe" theory from any historical scientific meaning whatsoever. In the final analysis Dave simply attacked a strawman of his own personal creation when he used the term "electric universe". He did it a second time with the term "plasma cosmology".

Now Dave produced a second video where he personally defines the term "plasma cosmology". Again Dave ignores the fundamental scientific necessity of correctly describing the logical historical context of these terms. Again Dave seems intent on creating his own personal strawman definition of the term "plasma cosmology" now too, again without any historical underpinning. All the while Dave is making false statements about that term too.

I'll let Ben Davidson speak for himself with respect to all of the numerous and childish cheap shots that Dave took at Ben. Dave really has some nerve to be passing himself off as a professor, since he's not actually teaching any classes at any colleges or universities which he's willing to share with us. Apparently Dave earns his living doing these cheesy and blatantly false videos on Youtube and then collecting click bait Youtube revenue.

So I'll personally limit my criticisms of the false statements made by Dave with respect to the term "plasma cosmology".

Before I begin my specific criticisms of Dave's new video on PC theory, I'll start by noting that as far as Birkeland or anyone living at the time knew then, humans of the early 20th century lived in what they believed at the time was a tiny one galaxy apartment complex. In reality however, they lived on outskirts of the Laniakea Supercluster, blissfully unaware of the fact that other galaxies or other superclusters even existed in space.

By the time Alfven came along to describe a "cosmological model" as we would think of one today, a few other important changes in astronomy occurred between Birkeland and Alfven. Specifically Edwin Hubble had demonstrated that other galaxies existed, by demonstrating that they obeyed a redshift/distance relationship. Secondly, Einstein's theory of GR replaced Newtonian concepts of gravity between Birkeland and Alfven.

Later individuals like Hannes Alfven, Anthony Peratt, Eric Lerner, and many other individuals, used Birkeland's original ideas of an electric galaxy universe and translated it into cosmological terms related to circuit theory, and plasma physics which wire the entire cosmological universe together.

So on to Dave's next science fiction horror flick kludge of "plasma cosmology" theory,

First of all, it should be noted that it took wading though ten full minutes of Dave personally attacking another youtube individual before he even bothered to try to discuss the topic, only to then list three false statements in a row with respect to "plasma cosmology" theory.

First Dave falsely asserts that PC theory doesn't predict the Hubble constant, when in fact Alfven's "bang'' theory described in his book "Cosmic Plasma" requires and predicts that very same Hubble constant too based on expansion and GR theory. Furthermore every single tired light model which has ever been proposed, attempts to deal with that same Hubble redshift observation, so Dave is actually wrong in two very different ways.

First an 'expansion" EU/PC cosmology model as promoted by Hannes Alfven does predict and requires the Hubble constant and attributes it to expansion, just like the LCDM model, or very similarly.

Eric Lerner, (another student of Alfven) has pointed out that a static universe explains the cosmological data at least as well as an expanding one, particularly as it relates to surface brightness at higher redshifts. Lerner's static version assumes a Hubble constant based on what Edwin Hubble called 'tired light', the concept that Hubble personally preferred himself preferred later in his life. So a 'plasma' (cosmology) filled universe could either be expanding, or it could be static, but in both versions of "plasma cosmology", Hubble's constant is 'predicted" (aka postdicted to fit observation just like the LCDM model). Dave is 0 for 1 in terms of his understanding of PC theory.

Dave erroneously then claims that "plasma cosmology" theory somehow does not predict the abundance of light elements, when in fact it has accounted for the abundance of light elements in space as far back as Birkeland himself who first predicted that "space" was filled with flying electrons and flying ions of all types. Since a proton (hydrogen ion) and a helium +2 ion have the highest charge to mass ratio, they'll most easily escape into space as they are more apt to react to EM fields in space. Other elements, including Iron and Nickel also make up a small amount of solar wind however. PC theory would explain the observed ratios of elements in space to be related to their mass to charge ratio in some way. Since hydrogen and helium are the lightest two ions, we'd expect the high charge/mass ration to makeup the vast majority of cosmic rays, and the majority of particle in solar wind as well. That isn't to say that heavier elements cannot be present, but they'd require a massively more powerful accelerator. Strike two on Dave as it relates to understanding PC theory. He's not doing PC theory any justice either.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pr ... 2N3ASS.PDF

My favorite 'false claim" was Dave then erroneously proclaiming that PC theory doesn't predict the cosmic microwave background, when in fact the average temperature of dust in space was predicted by Eddington to be 3.18 degrees Kelvin based on a static universe model and the scattering of starlight on dust in space. Eddington's estimate was actually *far* closer to the correct temperature of space than original big bang 'estimates". Dave is again fully discrediting himself on the topic of Plasma cosmology now too. Neither of those first three claims are true, anymore than any his first claims about EU theory true. Dave just makes this up as he goes without providing any historical context whatsoever. Strike three for Dave on PC theory now too. He's out!

Dave then goes on to claim that the PC model is "inconsistent with data in cosmology and astrophysics". LOL! That is also entirely false. Dave simply asserts the LCDM models as 'being true", therefore all data is consistent with one model and one model only, when in fact the data might be consistent with several models, all "explained' very differently, or entirely consistent with *no* models whatsoever. Dave makes no real attempt to try to understand other models, let alone how they would deal with these topics, so he "assumes" they do not exist. Dave then false assets "That's why cosmologists and astrophysicists ignore it". Boloney. They don't understand it any better than Dave does!

https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/php ... ?f=3&t=258

This is ultimately pure projection on Dave's part because, quite ironically, it's the LCDM model that is inconsistent with all high redshift data. For instance (for starters) the Hubble constant estimates based on SN1A data are inconsistent with later data, like data from the Planck telescope. The tension between the two Hubble constant estimates now exceeds five sigma. So it's actually the LCMD model which is inconsistent with later observations.

https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/php ... ?f=3&t=239

The only even proposed "fix" for that problem in the LCDM model results in a complete lack of any need whatsoever for "dark energy", rendering 68 percent of the LCMD model irrelevant and unnecessary.

Galaxies and quasars in the distant universe are also far to massive and mature to fit with the LCDM model. If any cosmology model is inconsistent with newer cosmological and newer laboratory data, it's the LCDM model. Most cosmologists and astrophysicists couldn't tell you the real history of electric universe or plasma cosmology theory any better than Dave. They've never studied it anymore than Dave has 'studied' it, as in maybe ten minutes total.

Dave ironically then claims that some "old scientists continue to cling to it because it's the only thing in their bag of tricks." That line blew up the irony meter since 95 percent of the LCDM model amounts to a metaphysical bag of dark magic tricks", not actual physics. That dark bag of magic tricks is clung to mostly by a bunch of old guys that don't even understand the magic tricks in their own bag". None of them for instance can even name so much as a single source of the dark energy stuff, let alone explain how it retains a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume, and defying the conservation of energy laws in the process.

They don't understand their "dark matter" trick either. They failed to find WIMPs, Axions, sterile neutrinos or anything else in any lab experiment over the past two decades. Tens of billions of dollars of failed "tests". The dark magic bag is tattered and torn after LHC.

Dave then goes right back to attacking anyone and everyone who's attended on conference on EU and/or PC theory, apparently associating the terms with Wal and Ben respectively, since that is apparently all Dave knows about either topic (both topics). Dave then directs a whole slew of mean spirited personal attacks toward anyone even remotely interested in the topic of EU/PC theory. How predictable.

Immediately Dave then reasserts some tirade about anyone daring to question St. Einstein about gravity, except of course when "mainstream" proponents try to explain gravity in terms of QM and a theory of everything. Dave is such an ignorant hypocrite.

Dave then gets all "preachy" about nobody has the right to question the fact that dark matter is the metaphysical gap filler required when attempting to ignore the role of electricity (electric fields and current) in space. Sorry Dave, but we even have real "mathematical models", with real computer models thanks to Peratt in fact, so we do indeed get to question your need for something *beyond* the standard model of particle physics to explain events in space, when we know for a fact that we can explain those same events within the framework of the standard model of particle physics.

The irony overload part of Dave's presentation comes at 11:30 where he claims that "you;re (we're) knowingly obfuscating the concepts and denying the evidence that supports it's existence, from multiple sources". That line is *packed* with assumptions galore, not to mention the irony of it.

First of all Dave is engaging in pure projection. He apparently knows nothing more about 'electric universe" theory than he heard in a couple of videos on Youtube by Wal Thornhill, and Dave apparently knows nothing more about the term plasma cosmology than the heard from Ben in his rebuttal video.

Apparently the limit to Dave's understanding and knowledge of any topic in science is based on a whatever Dave sees in a couple of videos on Youtube one day.

I just loved it when Dave tried to take the moral scientific high ground by claiming that astrophysics are confident that dark matter exists, and we mere human mortals (apparently himself included) aren't qualified to dare to even question the great wizards of dark OZ because we aren't all professional astrophysicists, "end of story". Dave's whole argument apparently amounts to an appeal to (in this case false) authority. Dave, did you miss the fact that every actual mathematical "prediction" that was made by any of them over the past 15 years with respect to LHC, Xenon experiments, etc all failed and blew up in their faces? They can't even name a single source of dark energy and it makes up the majority of their cosmological mode Dave, we have *every* right and every duty to question them about ideas that they can't even fully explain. Their predictive track record with respect to DM theory in the lab is *absolutely abysmal* Dave! End of story.

I think Dave saved the best irony for the last few comments in his video when he talked about "armchair scientists". That commentary was particularly ironic since Dave is claiming to know more about the topic of PC theory than Hannes Alfven (who won a Nobel Prize and who wrote it), Anthony Peratt, Dr. Charles Bruce and every "scientists" ever involved in PC theory. Dave is the *ultimate* "armchair scientist" on this topic. He literally knows almost *nothing* about it.

Dave points out that other people are encouraged by the possibility that since Ben and other armchair scientists can understand the EU/PC models, then they can learn them too. But then Ben shamelessly and viciously launches himself into another series of personal attacks at anyone and everyone who dares to attempt to do something which Dave himself has never done, and *try to actually learn* PC and/or EU theory for themselves.

Dave claims that 'none of them (EU/PC proponents) can muster a coherent thought to defend their world view when challenged". I not only handed Dave numerous coherent thoughts on this topic, I handed Dave a series of direct questions about historical context which he refuses to even address! It's actually Dave projecting again. It's Dave that cannot put together a coherent (accurate) thought to defend his world view. His "beliefs' aren't even remotely scientifically accurate to begin with in fact.

Dave compares anyone who disagrees with Dave as a 'delusional narcissists". Boom, Irony meter blown to the moon.

It's no mystery then why the irony of Dave's whole last riff on Ben applies directly to Dave's audience too. The people who listen to Dave don't know "science" and they're only interested in the 'narrative" that Dave is willing to hand them on a silver platter. In this case Dave's narrative is completely false, but his audience doesn't know enough about the topic to know any better so they actually believe his narcissistic crap.

I've offered Dave a perfect way for us to discuss EU/PC theory all he wishes and debate these ideas fairly and "cohesively" any time wants. Instead of even engaging me in a real scientific debate on this topic, Dave is only interested in presenting 'click bait" highly inflammatory and false videos to a scientifically illiterate audience.

I gotta hand it to Dave, he's taken willful ignorance of this topic to a new level. Apparently everything that Dave thinks that you know about EU theory Dave got from a couple of Youtube videos by Wal, and everything that Dave thinks that he knows about PC theory came from a Youtube videos by Ben. Man Dave, talk about lazy armchair scientists. You really take the cake on that score Dave.

[EtherQuestions]

Perfectly executed rebuttal, good job as always.

Just if we could get all his viewers/blind followers to see this!

I hold my position that Mozina should be making response/clarification videos for the ThunderboltsProject.

[JP Michael]

If Dave and his sycophants over at International Skeptics respond here in the same way they responded to me with frothing at the mouth and repetitive use of the word "krap" (seems to me that, true to their Einsteinologist faith, they're specialists in koprology), somehow I think that is something the EU could do without.

They're blind, compartmentalised and exhibit thoroughly cult-like behaviour. I suspect any interaction with them will be as effective as explaining to a Jehovah's Witness that Jesus is God.

[Michael Mozina]

If Dave and his sycophants over at International Skeptics respond here in the same way they responded to me with frothing at the mouth and repetitive use of the word "krap" (seems to me that, true to their Einsteinologist faith, they're specialists in koprology), somehow I think that is something the EU could do without.

They're blind, compartmentalised and exhibit thoroughly cult-like behaviour. I suspect any interaction with them will be as effective as explaining to a Jehovah's Witness that Jesus is God.

Ya, Dave does act like one of the most unethical of the ISF EU/PC hater posse alright, and his blatant misrepresentations of the facts in his last two videos on this topic would support that conclusion as well. If he's not one of the ISF EU hater posse already, he's being promoted by them heavily on Youtube in the comment section. The ISF disinformation campaign is in full swing in Dave's comment section.

What worries me the most however is that even so called "professional astrophysicists" never once bothered to point out the historical and scientific facts to Dave, like the fact that Kristian Birkeland beat us all to the concept of an "electric universe" by decades, if not a full century, and he beat all of us to the lab to test such ideas in controlled experimentation by more than a full century and counting. To this *day*, nobody since Birkeland has repeated Birkeland's entire series of EM field experiments to the same level of professionalism as Birkeland himself.

Even a "theory of everything" that is based on QM is not "denying" the role of gravity, it's simply attempting to explain gravity in terms of quantum mechanics, rather than GR, it's not denying the fact that gravity exists. Nobody being the least bit honest about this topic could ever suggest that EU theory denies the role of gravity, and nobody in our community has ever made that claim in the first place. Whether one chooses to explain gravity by Netwon's formulas which were good enough to get us to the moon, or GR theory, or a QM oriented "theory of everything" model that ties EM and gravity together, one is still recognizing of the existence of gravity.

This sort of blatant lack of honesty and professionalism extends into the realm of actual astrophysicists with the likes of Brian Koberlein. Contrary to Koberlein's blatant errors, nobody in our community ever predicted that suns emit "no neutrinos", but that hasn't stopped the likes of Lyin' Brian or Dishonest Dave from blatantly and intentionally misrepresenting the historical facts.

The fact of the matter is that none of the EU/PC hater posse can handle an honest scientific debate on this topic, and we all know it. I've invited Dave to join us here or on Reddit and have an open and honest public scientific debate on this topic, and I was banned from his Youtube channel for my efforts. EU theory doesn't deny the role of gravity, it simply adds EM effects to the physical processes occurring in space. It *includes* gravity and *includes* the EM fields. EU/PC emphasizes the importance of the electric field whereas LCDM proponents embrace only *magnetism* and try to define and describe magnetism in space in the absence of the electric current that sustains those fields over time.

The lack of a professional astrophysical rebuttal to these gross public misrepresentations says volumes IMO. It shows that the mainstream astrophysical community doesn't understand anything at all about EU/PC theory, not it's century of historical scientific support, both in the lab and in the area of mathematical modelling. Astronomers do not understand even the most rudimentary aspects about EU theory in terms of whether it predicts neutrinos from sun or it doesn't, or it includes or excludes gravity theories of every kind.

It's like living in the "dark" ages and the last days of Ptolemy and watching self proclaimed public "scientists" irrationally misrepresent the concept of heliocentrism, and none of the "professionals" even bothering to set the record straight in public. That's how bad it really is.

It's honestly quite sad when you think about it, but it's not without historical precedent in the field of astronomy. Aristarchus of Samos beat the mainstream astronomy community to the correct model of heliocentrism by more than 18 centuries, and he was right all along, in spite of 18 centuries of continuous ridicule by professional "astronomers". Birkeland beat most if not all of us to the addition of EM fields in space by a century or more in my particular case as it relates to the his electric field ideas. Even if astronomers are content to ignore the role of the electric fields in space, and attempt to minimize them to the point of being trivial influences, most everyone else is ready to embrace both sides of the EM fields, both the electric field as well as the magnetic field.

The heat source of the sun's corona is no great "mystery". It's continuously heated by the kinetic energy of the electrical current that is running through it. We've seen this demonstrated in the lab for more than a century. The Earth's aurora are not created nor sustained by "magnetic reconnection", they're created by and sustained by the continuous flow of electrical current from the Sun, into the Earth and into all of the planets. Even when the Earth's aurora are in 'dark mode' rather than glow mode, plasma in the Earth's upper atmosphere is still carrying electrical current into the planet, albeit at a reduced level. When the Earth is buffeted by stronger electrical currents, it's magnetic field channels the *additional* current into the poles and glow mode plasma aurora light up the night sky.

The electrical nature of our solar system has been known about and tested in the lab for more than a century. Gravity *alone* has never been able, and never will be able to fully explain high energy plasma events in our solar system, in our galaxy or in our universe. EM fields drive those events, and also have a significant physical effect on the movements of our plasma universe, most of which exists *outside* of the physical stars in our universe.

We really are on the dawn of a real golden empirical age in astrophysics, but the willfully blind lead the ignorantly blind when it comes to so called "scientists" like Dave and Brian. They give science a bad name and a bad reputation and they actually do science a disservice rather than a service.

[EtherQuestions]

If Dave and his sycophants over at International Skeptics respond here in the same way they responded to me with frothing at the mouth and repetitive use of the word "krap" (seems to me that, true to their Einsteinologist faith, they're specialists in koprology), somehow I think that is something the EU could do without.

They're blind, compartmentalised and exhibit thoroughly cult-like behaviour. I suspect any interaction with them will be as effective as explaining to a Jehovah's Witness that Jesus is God.

They do not even deserve the name "skeptic" when they are cognitively incapable of applying an ounce of skepticism or deductive reasoning to the bloated unscientific mess that has become LCDM Cosmology. Dave deletes comments (I have proof), refuses to debate (I wonder why ), formulates a critique almost entirely based on lies and disinformation ... he is a pathetic person and so are his blind followers who all believe that debunking Flat Earthers is a grand feat of intellectual superiority and authority (when Flat Earthers are the easiest target).

Anything not "Flat Earth", those fools cannot even seem to rebuke without the use of lies and outright misrepresentation.