The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

[jackokie]

@BeAChooser Thank you for all the important information in your comments today, and for pointing out that now is not the time to nit-pick about EU/PC/PU; if people understand it's Plasma vs Gravity that will help a lot. I read some of the fawning comments on Petrov's video you linked to; this one is typical:

We honestly need someone well-grounded, like you, policing the daft claims and putting everyone straight.
Thank you, Anton.

Yep, wouldn't want any wrongthink slipping into the bubble. And can you believe it, he's got a million subscribers.

[BeAChooser]

And can you believe it, he's got a million subscribers.

Yeah ... it's a little discouraging.

[jacmac]

BeAChooser

You may not agree with everything Lerner believes ... I don't either ... but I see EU/PC/PU as a big tent. I treat them as interchangeable when talking with outsiders

I was talking to you. We, posters on this forum, are not outsiders.

Look ... type "electric universe" into Google and the first hit you get is https://www.electricuniverse.info , a website about EU which states right off the bat that “The Electric Universe theory highlights the importance of electricity throughout the Universe. It is based on the recognition of existing natural electrical phenomena (eg. lightning, St Elmo’s Fire), and the known properties of plasmas (ionized “gases”) which make up 99.999% of the visible universe, and react strongly to electro-magnetic fields." I see no difference between that statement and Lerner's.

ALL of your comments about E. Lerner are about Plasma Cosmology.
I said the EU (as do I) agrees with Plasma Cosmology.

My recollection is there was very little about the way the sun works, which seems to be your big complaint about what Lerner believes.

I made no "big complaint" about anything E. Lerner said or believes.
I was commenting on something YOU SAID; that E. Lerner was a supporter of EU.

The EU says the sun is externally powered.
E. Lerner does not say or believe that.
The EU also talks about mythology, and Saturnalia, and posits an external powered sun , and.....etc.
Plasma cosmology does not speak about those things.
EU and PC are different. You may think of a big tent with EU, PC , and PU.
But my point is; I doubt Eric Lerner thinks that way.
You did a good DETAILED breakdown of why Anton Petrov is wrong.
I was pointing out a detail to you about something you said that I believe to be incorrect.

[BeAChooser]

Shivali Best, Executive Science and Technology Editor, will be the next *science communicator* whose propaganda I examine.

She writes …

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... -Bang.html

Claims have been spreading that James Webb's photos debunk Big Bang theory

The claims are based on an article published by Big Bang denier Eric Leaner

He has misconstrued data to suggest that astronomers are worried

Now right off the bat I have to note that she misspells Lerner last name 5 times in her article. She only spells it correct twice. My daddy use to say that I care what you write about me in the papers, just spell my name correctly. Her doing this is sloppy and shows a lack of attention to detail.

Now let's see if Shivali came come up with anything that I haven’t already debunked in this thread. She writes ...

Leaner has misconstrued early data from James Webb to suggest that astronomers are worried the Big Bang Theory is incorrect.

Let’s review again exactly what Lerner said in his article. In the first paragraph, he noted that “In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old.  Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant one. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: ‘Panic!’” So far, everything he wrote is true. Nothing is misconstrued.

Then he wrote “Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since.” Again, that’s all true or a valid opinion to express.

He continues … “Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” Again, he’s just reporting facts.

And ironically, the extremely hostile response from *communicators* to Lerner’s article (they’re coming out of the walls, ceiling and floor) is a clear sign that the mainstream has indeed panicked. Otherwise they’d just ignore him like they have all the other times he’s said in the last 2 decades. Like they have ignored what all the other EU/PC/PU proponents have said and written for decades.

Now notice, the next part of Lerner’s article doesn’t talk about "panic" but just discusses the data from JWST (as reported by mainstream sources) and what that suggest to him. And when he’s done, he writes “While Big Bang theorists were shocked and panicked by these new results, Riccardo and I (and a few others) were not. In fact, a week before the JWST images were released we published online a paper that detailed accurately what the images would show. We could do this with confidence because more and more data of all kinds has been contradicting the Big Bang hypothesis for years.”

Again all true. Numerous Big Bang scientists have expressed “shock” about the JWST results. And Lerner (and other EU proponents) did make predictions that are far closer to what JWST found than what the Big Bang theorists said they expected. Again, nothing was misconstrued or wrong.

Lerner than goes on in the article to say more about failed Big Bang predictions then, this is key because this is why the mainstream and their communicators are panicked, writes "Readers may well be wondering at this point why they have not read of this collapse of the Big Bang hypothesis in major media outlets by now and why the authors of so many recent papers have not pointed to this collapse themselves. The answer lies in what I term the “Emperor’s New Clothes Effect”—if anyone questions the Big Bang, they are labeled stupid and unfit for their jobs. Unfortunately, funding for cosmology comes from a very few government sources controlled by a handful of committees that are dominated by Big Bang theorists. These theorists have spent their lives building the Big Bang theory. Those who openly question the theory simply don’t get funded." And he is 100% correct.

He then notes, “It has now become almost impossible to publish papers critical of the Big Bang in any astronomical journals.” And that’s 100% true as well. And he gives a personal example to prove it. He writes “Such censorship is now, as always, inimical to the progress of science. Two dozen researchers in astrophysics, astronomy and space science have signed a letter of protest to the arXiv leadership. I have personally called on leading Big Bang theorists to openly debate the new evidence. For cosmology – as for any research area - to advance, this debate must happen openly in both scientific journals and the public media.” There's nothing misconstrued or incorrect in that ... or unreasonable.

He’s totally justified in saying that and, as he proves, he’s not alone in that view. Now notice that NOT ONE of the *science communicators* who articles or videos I’ve discussed so far has even mentioned this portion of his paper. They ALL got stuck on the first several paragraphs where he poked the Big Bang community in the gut ... poked fun at them. Not one of them mentions that ALL Lerner is asking for is open debate about the evidence in media that will reach the masses. That’s what science is supposed to be about, isn't it? He hasn't demanded that everyone believe his (EU/PC/PU) theories. He just wants the ability to debate the issues in a level playing field that the public can witness. Yet, every one of the so-called *science communicators* has ignored this and, in fact, are focused solely on shutting down Lerner to make sure there is no debate. How ANTI-SCIENCE.

And this latest article from Daily Mails *science communicator* is no different. The truth is that it is Shivali who misconstrues. No, worse than that, she deliberately misrepresents what Lerner wrote in his article. She spends much of her article space defending poor little Allison Kirkpatrick from an injustice that mean old Lerner, who only accurately reported what Allison tweeted, did not commit. He never said she’d become a Big Bang supporter. He only, accurately, noted her despair upon seeing the JWST results and asked why? The mere self inflicted notion that she might be thought a Big Bang support because of Lerner’s interest, drove Allison to change her moniker on the internet. She was that fearful of being lumped into the Big Bang "denier" catergory. Why is that? BECAUSE IT MIGHT AFFECT HER FUNDING, that’s why. And that's EXACTLY what Lerner noted in his article.

So Shivali is sent out to make poor Allison a victim and works hard at that … rather than carefully explore the important question … why did Allison say what she did in the first place, if all is well in the astrophysics community, as we’re still being led to believe by the communicators? Shivali glosses over that question and simply regurgitates what seems to be the explanation most of the *communicator* community is now offering … that she was only referring to the “early evolution of the universe." That she wasn't talking about the Big Bang.

But remember, Kirkpatrick said she wondered if “EVERYTHING” she “EVER” did “is wrong.” She claims she’s not a cosmologist … just a black hole expert. Black holes are now a central feature used to explain just about every observation in the Big Bang Universe. If she is concerned that everything she ever thought about them is wrong, then that potentially might undermine one of the major entities that the mainstream has relied on to prop up their model. This is no minor matter and just because Allison's statement wasn’t a “direct reference” to Big Bang theory (as Shivila makes sure to point out) doesn’t mean what Kirkpatrick is worried about has nothing to with whether mainstream Big Bang cosmology is right. Indeed, caption in Shivila’s own article, reads that “the Big Bang Theory is a cosmological model used to describe the beginning AND THE EVOLUTION of our universe.” So if Allison was worried about the early evolution of the universe, she was worried about the Big Bang. It's right there, in black and white, in *science communicator* Shivali's article. Doubt me not.

Next Shivali writes that “One of the key reasons why the Big Bang is still the leading theory on our universe's beginnings is because of cosmic microwave background (CMB) - the radiation leftover from the Big Bang” and that “While Lerner has proposed other explanations for CMB, these have all been disproven in the past.” Again she misconstrues and misrepresents. Let’s talk about what Lerner says here, https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmi ... -big-bang/, regarding CMB (since he says nothing about it in his latest article).

First he notes that the initial prediction of the Big Bang was that CMB would be “smooth” but then it was observed to be so smooth on large scales that there would have been “too little time for regions that we now see in different parts of the sky to reach equilibrium with each other, or even to receive energy from each other at the speed of light. So to fix that, Big Bang theorists introduced “an unknown force, dubbed ‘inflation’, that generated an exponential phase of the Big Bang that blew up the universe so rapidly that all asymmetries were smoothed away.”

He then notes that “the latest crisis is that “based on the data from the Planck satellite, the best fit to the CMB predicts a Hubble constant (the ratio of redshift to distance) in conflict with observations based on Supernovae. The best fits imply a curved universe, in conflict with the predictions of inflation for a flat universe. And they predict a density of dark matter far greater than any measurements derived from the motion of galaxies.” And that “In contrast to the multiple contradictions of the Big Bang theory of the CMB with its “ultra precise” but wrong predictions, non-Big Bang processes provide a better explanation. The energy that was released in producing the observed helium in the universe equals the energy in the CMB. Any radiation become isotropized if it travels in a medium that scatters it. There is abundant observational evidence that microwave-frequency radiation is scattered in the intergalactic medium.” Now contrary to what Shivali claims, that has not be disproven.

In fact, inflation, which current Big Bang theories depend on to solve the CMB smoothness problem, is in trouble itself. As Wikipedia notes “Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics.” Here's an article in Scientific American (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... -conceive/ ) titled "Physicist Slams Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive". Wikipedia says that he and his colleagues' analysis of the Planck satellite 2013 results led them to conclude (according to Wikipedia) that "the chances of obtaining a universe matching the observations after a period of inflation is less than one in a googolplex. That small. In fact, that's next to impossible. Wikipedia further notes that “in 2015, the unlikeness problem was reaffirmed and strengthened by a subsequent round of measurements reported by the Planck satellite team.” Sorry, Shivali ... if there’s no inflation, Big Bang is in Big Trouble.

Now you won’t find this worry discussed by any of the so-called *science communicators". For example, In Ethan Siegel’s hit piece on Lerner, he mentions inflation and it’s importance, but doesn’t once mention any of this. Instead he assures his audience that “Inflation allows us to describe the initial conditions of the Universe at the start of the hot Big Bang: how hot and dense it was, what the initial spectrum of density imperfections were — including that were all adiabatic, gaussian random fluctuations — and what the magnitude of these fluctuations were on all cosmic scales” and moves on.

And that, my friends, is the sum total of Shivali’s *destruction* of Lerner. LOL!

[BeAChooser]

I was talking to you. We, posters on this forum, are not outsiders.

Insiders are not really the target of my posts. I figure most of you don't need convincing about the unfairness of the media or mainstream scientific establishment. I'm hoping that a few visitors to the forum from outside will see and read them. And if what I write is going to be helpful to insiders, it will probably only matter if they have to deal with outsiders.

ALL of your comments about E. Lerner are about Plasma Cosmology.
I said the EU (as do I) agrees with Plasma Cosmology.

Fine. So your bone is with me not distinguishing between EU and PC. Now here’s my question … do you think making a big deal about the differences is going to help the joint cause at this time? In my opinion, such in-fighting will only confuse the general public and make us look even more fringe than they already view us. Like I said, we need to focus on our similarities and push those similarities into public awareness.

I made no "big complaint" about anything E. Lerner said or believes.
I was commenting on something YOU SAID; that E. Lerner was a supporter of EU.

Fine. Please point me to a clear definition of EU … because in the definitions I quoted earlier from two of major EU websites, I didn’t see much difference between Lerner and them. The one thing I notice now, though, is that neither talks about the origin of the universe. But the funny thing is, discovering the origin of the universe and supporting the models that derive from origin theories seems to be where most of the money being directed at astrophysics is now spent. So maybe Lerner is on the right track if the goal is to break the mainstream’s hold over the media and funding.

The EU says the sun is externally powered.
E. Lerner does not say or believe that.

Are you certain that Lerner doesn’t believe that. The method that he’s using to try to harness fusion (his plasma focus device) has filaments of electric current carrying plasma winding about each other and interacting in such a way that they create a plasmoid, where the electric energy in the filaments is released by a process that might cause fusion to occur. His book outlined this, then applied the concept to explaining quasars and the energy produced at the core of active galaxies. He asks in his book why the filaments connecting galaxies couldn’t be akin to the filaments of plasma focus device. He wrote “They would produce magnetic fields in which galaxies, as they rotate would produce the plasmoids that make up quasars or active galactic nuclei.” Now remember, that was at a time when most astrophysicists did not believe that space could carry currents at all.

He took his speculation further. He posited that the same process occurs at the stellar level … forming jet producing protostars. He didn't go into great detail but that was in the book. That being the case, at least initially, his is an externally powered star model with current flowing along filaments toward the plasmoid that creates the star. After that, perhaps fusion processes in or on the surface of the star enhance its energy output. One advantage of his model over the Electric Star model is that he can explain the protostar jets and explain how the angular momentum of the initial plasma cloud from which the star formed got distributed like it is between the star and the planets … as in say, our solar system. I’ve not heard how the Electric Sun model does either. In any case, I’m not sure you’re entirely correct about Lerner’s beliefs regarding where all the energy emitted by the star derives. In Lerner’s model, assuming his fusion focus is near the center of the star, some of the energy must still come from the interstellar filaments that created it and are still flowing into it.

EU and PC are different. You may think of a big tent with EU, PC , and PU.
But my point is; I doubt Eric Lerner thinks that way.

Does it matter, if he opens the door to electricity and plasma being taken seriously? After that happens, then you’ll have the luxury of arguing the details. Do that now and it may not happed and if that doesn’t happen, the details won’t matter one iota.

[BeAChooser]

By the way, jacmac, I greatly appreciate your comments. They are helping me think out what I really believe.

[BeAChooser]

I finally found a communicator’s article that I like … especially his(?) way with titles …

https://dailyrake.ca/2022/08/27/did-the ... ly-happen/

Did the Ooey Gooey Space Kabloie Really Happen?

[BeAChooser]

Here's the article by the next communicator I will discuss ...

https://ordinary-times.com/2022/08/25/t ... -happened/

Thursday Throughput: Yes, the Big Bang Happened

It’s by Michael Siegel, the lead scientist/astronomer of NASA’s Swift Ultraviolet/Optical Telescope. In other words, he has a vested interest in the status quo. He posts his criticism of Lerner on a website called “The Conversation”, so he might think of himself as a communicator too.

He says the JWST hasn’t disproven the Big Bang. Then he says “I won’t pretend to understand plasma cosmology.” He shouldn’t because he doesn’t, even though he’s an astronomer. In fact, he’s still stuck on the 30 year old idea that Plasma Cosmology requires a balance between matter and anti-matter, and says that Lerner has “continued to tout it” (implying the matter/anti-matter balance). That’s false. What he describes as Plasma Cosmology isn’t modern plasma cosmology. It's the Alfven-Klein cosmology from the 1960s and 1970s.

Rather than embrace Alfven-Klein cosmology, Lerner, in the appendix of his 1991 book, noted that “Alfven’s antimatter theory” “faces some definite problems.” He proceeded to list and explain problem after another. These problems soon led to the abandonment of an anti-matter/matter balance as an part of Plasma Cosmology. Nothing Lerner now says shows interest in antimatter cosmology. Anthony Peratt, another major figure in Plasma Cosmology, in his "Physics of the Plasma Universe" book from 1991 didn’t even mention antimatter. So when Peebles wrote a book in 1993 attacking the concept, it was dropped from Plasma Cosmology. Hence, Siegel starts out by being either dishonest of ill informed about Lerner and Plasma Cosmology.

Now from that bad starting point, he digs his hole even deeper. He says “Lerner is misquoting the JWST results and scientists involved.” That’s another clear dishonesty, as I've shown over and over. Learner published exactly what the scientists said about the data and their public comments about it.

Then Siegel claims that “none of these discoveries are inconsistent with the Big Bang”, rationalizing every thing away by saying, “even taken at face value, they show that galaxies may have grown and evolved much more rapidly than we thought.” But that not just what astrophysicists "thought" that counts, it’s the way they presented what they thought … with total confidence in what they would find once JWST went up. They just can’t bring themselves to admit that they completely flubbed the ball. So now they want to use Lerner as a distraction for their own mistaken beliefs.

Now of course, Michael Siegel just has to get his two cents in about poor little Allison Kirkpatrick, too. All *communicators* do. He says that Lerner by quoting her, implied she was talking about Big Bang. No, I read nothing more into Lerner's quoting them than that JWST results are not what they expected. And besides, as I showed in a post above, Shivali Best said Big Bang Theory includes the evolution of universe. Maybe the professor should ensure that’s she’s excommunicated form the Big Bang brother/sister/it hood for such blasphemy. Or course, that might be a little difficult when it’s easy to find other sources on the internet stating that the Big Bang Theory includes the evolution of the universe. Even NASA says it on their WMAP website: https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html “The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe.”

The next set of comments Professor Siegel makes, while ignoring the full scope Lerner’s own article's arguments against Big Bang, are in regard to the what Siegle calls the seven pillars of Big Bang evidence. I won't go over each ... but her are a few of them ...

1) The Big Bang Theory correctly predicted the detection of the Cosmic Microwave Background

But I wonder if it did? Robert Wilson in his 1978 Nobel Prize Lecture for discovering in 1964 the cosmic microwave background, admitted (https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018 ... ture-1.pdf ) that "The first confirmation of the microwave cosmic background that we knew of … came from a totally different, indirect measurement. The measurement had, in fact, been made thirty years earlier by Adams and Dunham. Adams and Dunham had discovered several faint optical interstellar absorption lines. ... snip ... In the case of CN, in addition to the ground state, absorption was seen from the first rotationally excited state. McKeller [BAC - in 1941] using Adams’ data on the populations of these two states calculated that the excitation temperature of CN was 2.3 K. This rotational transition occurs ... snip ... near the peak of a 3 K black body spectrum. Shortly after the discover of the background radiation, … snip … independently realized that the CN is in equilibrium with the background radiation. … snip … In addition to confirming that the background was not zero, this idea immediately confirmed that the spectrum of the background was close to that of a blackbody source for wavelengths larger than the peak."

It’s hard to imagine this would have just been ignored by the Big Bang developers. And all this happened years before Alpher and Herman (in 1948) predicted that the Big Bang would create a “temperature in the universe” of 5K. It’s also worth noting that Alpher and Herman did not mention either then or later that the radiation was in the microwave region. They only later made it clear that what they had called "the temperature in the universe" referred to a blackbody distributed background radiation quite different from the starlight". They did not actually mention microwave background radiation. But they still get the credit for the *prediction*, none the less.

4) The Big Bang Theory correctly predicts the large scale structure in the universe. When we look at millions of galaxies, we find that they are not distributed randomly, but form vast structure in the cosmos.

GARBAGE. Big Bang supporters for years (even into the early 2000s) denied the existence of the ubiquitous plasma filaments that we know know form the very backbone of the structure of the cosmos. This is revisionism as at it’s worst. The truth is that it was Plasma cosmologists who actually predicted the ubiquitous presence of plasma filaments (and thus the structure of the cosmos). The also predicted the shape and numbers of the galaxies that wold be seen in the JWST. And those are only a few of the successful predictions that Plasma Cosmologists have made.

5) The Big Bang correctly predicts that, over large enough scales, the universe is homogenous.

So did the Steady State and Modern Plasma Cosmology. No big deal.

And this one is the most laughable of all …

7) The Big Bang is consistent with our understanding of existing physical laws

Oh ... is that why BB now requires Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflation, etc etc etc? Need I say more?

Then Siegel admits, “[Big Bang's] not perfect — there is a growing tension in the Hubble Constant and we still have no idea what Dark Energy is.” Or Dark Matter. Or Inflation. Or for that matter how protostars produce jets like quasars and galaxies. And I’m still waiting to hear a good explanation why there are so many helically wound plasma filmament out there … including the ones between galaxies. And I could go on and on listing imperfections.

Having admitted that, Michael Siegel next says “Now what about the alternative? In order to reject the theory of the Big Bang in favor of plasma cosmology, it’s not enough to accept on fringe theory. You have to accept a ziggurat of fringe theories.” LOL! Hilarious, coming a guy who, as I demonstrated in the opening paragraphs of this post, doesn’t have the slightly clue about the tenants and basis of modern Plasma Cosmology.

And the rest of what he says is just as bad and just dishonest.

He tells us that to explain away cosmic expansion, we have to invoke “tired light”, then laughably argues that tired light is “unproven physics”. This, form a guy whose model requires a host of unproven, hypothetical .. .nay, magical! … entities and *physics*. Plus, he completely the many other possible causes of redshift, which might completely destroy the claim the universe is expanding.

He tells us that to explain away Dark Matter, we have to invoke MOND. No, *Professor*, we do not. He is apparently completely unaware that back in the last century, a plasma physicist named Anthony Peratt demonstrated, using plasma analysis codes, that the rotation rate of galaxies could be produced through the interaction of galaxy sized Birkeland currents (like those which have now been observed) without invoking ANY Dark Matter.

He tells us that to explain away the CMB, we have to invoke a previously undetected intergalactic medium that is emitting light. I note in response that every time a new instrument the mainstream builds find more previously unknown intergalactic medium. It seems as if not a day goes without more previously unseen matter being discovered. And lots of that matter emits or scatters light. As Michael Mozina of this forum has stated, the CMB is nothing more than an ordinary background produced by countless numbers of suns, galaxies, filaments and dust scattering light. And he noted that the overall average temperature of spacetime is *far better predicted* without a bang than with one. That has been proven over and over.

Is should be clear by now that this *communicator* is nothing but a dishonest, uninformed lackey of the mainstream. He should never have been given a doctorate in astronomy or astrophysics. He’s a danger to his profession. And notice one last thing about his article. In his entire diatribe against Lerner and Plasma Cosmology, he didn’t once mention the desire of Lerner for a open public debate on the subject. That’s because the last thing in the world these folks want is public debate where they can’t control what goes out on the airways. That's why *science communicators* are so busy.

[BeAChooser]

It was late when I made the last post. Beside typos and grammar mistakes here and there, I also said that Michael Siegel published his article in "The Conversation" and thus might think himself a communicator. I was wrong about that. He published it in ordinary-times.com. But as you can see, the owner of that website also tries to communicate science to followers, and assuming Siegel knew that, I stand by him wanting to be a communicator.

[jacmac]

BeAChooser

jacmac wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 3:50 pm
The EU says the sun is externally powered.
E. Lerner does not say or believe that.

Are you certain that Lerner doesn’t believe that.

I was going from memory. I did a quick relook and didn't find what i remembered.
I will try again to find his comment from the book.

By the way, jacmac, I greatly appreciate your comments. They are helping me think out what I really believe.

Thank you.

The reason for my focus on that detail:
You are right about all the factions under the big tent being supporters of an anti standard cosmology,
and thus supporters of each other, but I still think it's not good to say so and so supports the EU, if it is not quite right.
All people need to paint you, or anyone, as a quack would be one good misstep.
Besides Lerner, I remember that Anthony Peratt does not wish to be associated with the EU.
Also, going further back in time, Alfven and Birkeland both had no issue with internal solar power.

Please point me to a clear definition of EU … because in the definitions I quoted earlier from two of major EU websites, I didn’t see much difference between Lerner and them.

I don't know where there might be the most definitive definition of the EU.
The theory of an externally powered sun, first put out by Ralph Juergens , later taken up by Wal Thornhill on his Holoscience.com web site, and discussed at length in Dr. Scott's books is definitely part of the EU "model".

Just how the externally powered sun works has been my main focus in recent years.

Perseverance Furthers
Jack

[BeAChooser]

Besides Lerner, I remember that Anthony Peratt does not wish to be associated with the EU.

Lerner and Peratt are still working in more mainstream arenas where they have to be careful how far they go towards EU thinking. Emulating Thornhill could be career ending at this point. But in reality we need to be careful, too, because ultimately we are trying to convince the masses that we are right. Little changes in thinking at a time might be a more effective way to get there. Ease them into thinking our way.

Right now EU is really fighting an uphill battle to get Electric Sun accepted because it's requiring they take a giant leap to reach the summit. Even if Big Bang, Dark Matter and all the other silliness of mainstream communities think about the extrasolar environment is defeated, people are still going to think the sun runs on fusion. It's that engrained and the break with what they know is that huge.

So if you insist on them coming to you, rather than meeting them halfway and opening their eyes before guiding them the rest of the way, you're going to need to either prove there's no fusion in or on the sun (unlikely) or prove that the photosphere is not what the mainstream claims and capture evidence that these electrical transactions you posit. Otherwise, the mainstream will just ignore or spin any more circumstantial evidence you find, just like they've managed to ignore or spin all the observed contradictions with the Big Bang managerie for decades and decades.

[jacmac]

I agree with everything you said above.
That is generally what I had in mind when I said a few posts back that
people moving toward plasma cosmology was a big step in the right direction.

[nick c]

The story of plasma scientist Tony Peratt and the personal cost of his involvement with the Electric Universe community deserves to be told simply and accurately.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/0 ... -universe/

[BeAChooser]

The really sad part is that focusing on the above killed off his work on this:

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/wp-con ... 50x222.jpg

Imagine if those sort of studies had continued?

[BeAChooser]

Now this is from MSN …

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo ... r-AA11k7Qe

James Webb Space Telescope is spotting things that have scientists baffled

… snip …

As I noted above, one of James Webb’s biggest strengths is being able to peer into the early universe in some capacity, unlike any other space telescope we’ve ever crafted. As such, it has given us insight into the first moments of our universe that we wouldn’t otherwise have. But, these James Webb observations have also left many scratching their heads.

For the longest time, scientists believed that the early universe was a place of chaos. A point in time when early galaxies were small and unorganized as the cosmos formed. However, with James Webb observing galaxies so far back in time, we can see that things were quite different. Galaxies were not only massive but also less chaotic than originally predicted.

These new truths have turned things on their head even more. That’s because observations by previous telescopes like Hubble seemed to line up with the hypothesis that the early universe was chaotic. However, it seems that the appearance of chaos may simply have been caused by Hubble’s limitations. With these new James Webb observations, we’re finally able to see the truth in high resolution.

This article points out something important. Big Bang theorists had actually predicted a chaotic early universe BEFORE Hubble showed them images that suggested one. Hubble results were only seen as confirmation of their theories. They were not the reason astrophysicists claimed the early universe was chaotic. But Michael Merrifield, the professor from Nottingham who did the video interview I linked earlier defending the Nottingham PhD student (Leonardo Ferreira) who used the word “panic” in a paper about finding the early universe filled with smooth (non-chaotic) spirals and little chaos, told his interviewer that the reason astrophysicists thought the early universe would be chaotic was the Hubble observations. So was that a deliberate deception on his part? You’d think he’d have known the real story.

Anyway, thanks MSN for finally doing A LITTLE of your job … reporting the truth.