Testing the Electric Universe

In Pseudoscience by Brian Koberlein470 Comments

There’s a cosmological model that has gained popularity on the internet known as the Electric Universe.  The basic claim of the Electric Universe model is that much of the astronomical phenomena observed in the universe is driven by electrical interactions rather than gravitational ones.  Proponents of the model claim that the Electric Universe is a much simpler solution that solves many of the cosmic mysteries mainstream astro-scientists are unable to solve.  The model is so simple that it doesn’t require any of that mathematical obfuscation found in the standard model.  But astro-scientists are too set in their ways to look at the model with an open mind.  We certainly can’t ignore such a revolutionary idea, so let’s put it to the test.

There are actually many variations to the Electric Universe model, but the most popular version seems to focus around the book by Thornhill and Talbot listed below.  It is this basic model I’ll discuss here, using the references listed at the bottom of the post.  If you want to get an overview of the model, Findlay’s ebook (available for free) is as good a reference as any.  The basic idea of this particular model is that cosmic magnetic fields interact with interstellar plasma to drive astrophysical processes.  Gravitational interactions play a negligible role in the universe.  From this idea several claims and predictions are made.  In particular:

Neither dark matter nor dark energy exist.  Black holes don’t exist. The big bang didn’t happen.

Galaxies are formed by kinks in cosmic magnetic fields.  They begin as electric quasars which then expand into modern galaxies.

Stars are electrically charged masses formed within galactic plasmas.  They are not heated by nuclear fusion within their core, but rather by a flow of plasma, similar to a florescent light.

Stars “give birth” electrically to companion stars and gas giant planets.

Redshift is not a measure of galactic distance.  It is instead a measure of galactic age.

Special Relativity is wrong.  General Relativity is wrong.

A neutrino image of the Sun. Credit: R. Svoboda and K. Gordan - LSU

A neutrino image of the Sun. EU predicts this doesn’t exist.
Credit: R. Svoboda and K. Gordan – LSU

So, where to begin?  Let’s start with the Sun.  In the standard model, the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion in its core.  There the fusion of hydrogen into helium produces not only light and heat, but neutrinos.  In the electric universe model, the Sun is lit by electrically excited plasma.  This gives us two very clear predictions.  The first is regarding neutrinos.  The standard model predicts that the Sun will produce copious amounts of neutrinos due to nuclear interactions in its core.  The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.  The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun.  We have not only observed solar neutrinos, we have imaged the Sun by its neutrinos.

The second prediction regarding the Sun can be seen in its spectrum.  In the standard model, the nuclear reactions in the Sun’s core produce light and heat that cause the star to shine.  If this is the case, then Sun should emit thermal radiation.  In other words, the spectrum of colors its gives off should be an almost continuous, with dark lines where cooler gasses in its upper atmosphere absorb some of the light.  If instead the Sun were lit by electrically excited plasma, as the EU model predicts, the spectrum should be a discontinuous spectrum of bright lines.  Plasma discharges do not emit a continuous spectrum of light.  Of course, what we see is a continuous spectrum as the standard model predicts.  Once again, the EU model fails.

Top: The nearly continuous spectrum of the Sun.  Bottom: The bright line spectrum of a compact florescent light.  Credit: John P. Beale

Top: The nearly continuous spectrum of the Sun. Bottom: The bright line spectrum of a compact florescent light. Credit: John P. Beale

Unlike the neutrino observations, the solar spectrum has been well observed since the 1800s.  Long before the EU model was ever proposed.  It is a test you can do at home with a diffraction grating.  Beyond any shadow of a doubt, the Sun gives off a thermal spectrum, not a plasma one.

But lest we be accused of not giving the Electric Universe model a fair shake, let’s look at the other claims.  Are special and general relativity wrong?  Nope.  They’ve been confirmed in the lab.  In fact whenever you use your mobile phone’s GPS to find a local coffee shop, you’re communicating with satellites that correct for the effects general and special relativity.  Relativity is not merely abstract theory, it is now applied technology.

How about the idea that stars “give birth” to other stars and planets?  If that were the case, we should see stars form as isolated objects in stellar nurseries, then later form planetary systems.  Instead, what we see is protostars form with protoplanetary disks of gas and dust out of which planets form.  We’ve observed these at various stages of development around different stars, and even have dozens of examples in the Orion nebula, which is a nearby stellar nursery.

Protoplanetary disks seen in the Orion Nebula. Credit: NASA/ESA and L. Ricci (ESO)

Protoplanetary disks seen in the Orion Nebula. Credit: NASA/ESA and L. Ricci (ESO)

It doesn’t look good for the Electric Universe model.  But let’s give it one last chance.  In the standard model galaxies form gravitationally, and are well developed relatively early in the universe.  Quasars are powered by black holes in the center of galaxies, and are one example of what we call active galactic nuclei.  In the EU model, quasars are formed by pinches in cosmic magnetic fields, and from them galaxies form.  Rather than being an indication of distance, redshift is a result of the age of a galaxy or quasar.  So as galaxy matures, its redshift decreases.  If the EU model is right, then we should only see quasars with high redshifts (therefore large inferred distances).  Also, the more distant (redshifted) a galaxy, the less developed it should appear.

p0829-a-w

So here’s a collection of barred spirals at different distances (or redshifts).  Notice how the most distant ones are the least developed?  No?  Actually they all look pretty similar, which is exactly what the standard model predicts, and what the EU model says absolutely shouldn’t happen.  By the way, the nearest quasar observed (3C 273) is only about 2.4 billion light years away, which means it has a smaller observed redshift than three of these fully developed galaxies.  Again in complete contradiction to the EU model.

So never let it be said that an astro-scientist has never considered the electric universe model with an open mind.  The Electric Universe model is wrong.  Provably, clearly and ridiculously wrong.

We’ve put the Electric Universe to the test.  Final Grade:  F-

Reference: The Electric Universe by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbot

Reference:  The Electric Sky by Donald E. Scott

Reference:  A Beginner’s View of Our Electric Universe by Tom Findlay (PDF)

Comments

  1. First of all, every point you make ASSUMES a gravitational, inflationary scenario is at work to begin with. You aren’t looking at EU with an open mind, you are looking at it as hostile. NASAs IBEX has clearly shown a ribbon of charged particles at the heliospheric boundary. Let that sink in. ELECTRIFIED PLASMA.

    You’re looking through a filter, take your eye away from it and look again.

    1. Author

      At no point in this post did I assume an inflationary universe. The only thing I noted was the relation between redshift and distance, which is only noted because the galaxy image lists them by distance, where it is actually by redshift. Demonstrating that EU is blatantly wrong isn’t being hostile, it is just putting it to the test. The EU model simply doesn’t work.

      1. I’m not a trained scientist, so please understand I mean no disrespect to your knowledge and skill set. But what I keep running into with respect to these “debates” are underlying assumptions and ways of interpreting things that simply go unquestioned, as if astrophysicists and other proponents of the Standard model aren’t even conscious of it.

        I really don’t see the issue with your examples of barred spirals. Both the EU model and the Standard model require a mechanism and time to produce these formations. You are stacking up different pictures and trying to draw conclusions that simply can’t be drawn. First of all, if those snap shots actually represent a single formation over time, then you might be able to say something, but they don’t. Second, the complexity of electric fields, magnetic fields, and electric currents in plasma allow for a great deal of uniqueness with respect to these kinds of formations, which is EXACTLY what plasma physicists and some in the EU camp are trying to work out.

        1. Bob, the observed facts of the sun producing vast amounts of neutrinos, and having a continuous (thermal) spectrum rather than the one you get from a plasma discharge, *already* completely falsifies the EU model. Trust me, it’s game over.

          Context: I have a physics degree and used to be an EU supporter before I was shown how it couldn’t possibly be true.

          1. Re: “Bob, the observed facts of the sun producing vast amounts of neutrinos, and having a continuous (thermal) spectrum rather than the one you get from a plasma discharge, *already* completely falsifies the EU model. Trust me, it’s game over.

            Context: I have a physics degree and used to be an EU supporter before I was shown how it couldn’t possibly be true.”

            This article completely misstates the EU case, insofar as it alleges that “The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.”

            Go to http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm

            “The electron-nuetrinos that are observed are probably produced by fusion taking place at the solar surface that produces heavy elements (other than hydrogen and helium).”

          2. Author

            There’s no solar furnace at the surface. The temperature is not high enough. There’s no solar furnace in the corona either because their isn’t enough density.

      2. Dude, of course the spectroscopy of a fluorescent light is different from the sun. Want to compare apple to apples? Look at the results from the SAFIRE project, where they are actually testing the validity of the electric sun model instead of assuming that a fluorescent light is the same as the electric sun.

        1. The electricity that we use every day is the flow (current) of electrons through a conductor. It can also be static, which is a charge (negative or positive) within an insulator.

    2. the big bang may be easist to understand it patterns wghat we know birth life and death past present future so naturaly this sounds correct to life forms interpretation and fits the observations in science

    3. After following the EU theory and being trained in Nuclear Physics I have come to some conclusions. There is no doubt that electrical charges and plasma are major players in our Universe. The science supports the plasma filaments interconnecting everything in the universe. Charged particles are everywhere and are huge players in the movements of energy. Our planet is a generator of charge and fields surrounded by ions. This is real and needs to better understood by science. And that Relativity is the best description of Gravity and it’s role in producing what we see throughout the universe and has held up now for a century. The Model of fusion fired stars is irrefutable to me. So, why must the factions clash? The EU supporters do no one a service by the dogmatic denial of “The Standard Model”. And any main stream astrophysicist who discounts the power of electrical forces and charge equally fails in his due diligence.

      Rather than one more divisive fuss. I want to see intelligent integration of solid evidence into a more complete picture of reality.

      The evidence of Plasma etching on the surface of Mars is compelling. And I have never thought much of the “dirty snowball” primordial remnant Comet idea. They simply could not survive billions of years of interaction within our solar system. And now the evidence is there to revise the picture. I like the EU explanation. But, the devil is in the details and they have not as yet explained how ginormous plasma arcs capable of planetary remolding were created and pinpointed to the surface of Mars. Or the continual recharging of charged bodies with enough energy to create the high energy plasma we might be seeing on comets.

      Any theory without the math and demonstrate-able proofs is simply a product of the illusion of knowledge. Yes, the prediction of the flash before impact from deep impact probe does point toward predictability of the theory. But, that does not refute the power of a nuclear fired sun. I can speculate about the conversion of photonic energy to charge natural silicates and the lensing effect of a planet’s magnetosphere on massive ejections of plasma from the sun all I want. But without the theoretic mathematical proofs and logically presented physics done by the very established physicists they denounce the whole argument is mute.

      Velikovsky was obviously a brilliant man and obviously a powerful personality. But his theory of planetary movement was debunked along time ago. And any theory based a failed assumptions is going to produce bad science. So, isn’t it time for the EU people to drop the BS and make an earnest effort to work with the powers that be. And for the academics to get off their high horse and let go of the dogmas that holds back the real advancement toward truth. After all that is supposed to be their job. Too bad their human failings are always getting in the way.

    4. Please explain (in great great detail) how the assumption of gravitational inflation is skewing the results presented above.

      Please go through each of the examples and hone in on exactly what the consequences would be of having such assumptions.

      If you can’t do this, why would you post this comment on here?

      1. @ BOB

        Please explain (in great great detail) how the assumption of gravitational inflation is skewing the results presented above.

        Please go through each of the examples and hone in on exactly what the consequences would be of having such assumptions.

        If you can’t do this, why would you post this comment on here?

      1. Well, then I should be clear that I am able to understand PRECISELY that this observation has a very particular meaning for the Electric Sun hypothesis. I am very concerned by what I’m seeing, for it appears quite possible that Wal’s model could actually become validated by a number of supporting observations, and yet it doesn’t appear to me that conventional theorists would actually realize it. The potential for that situation should trouble everybody.

        I am incredibly concerned that the EU’s detractors have not studied these claims well enough to argue against them. I know you mean well, but I think we need to back up a little bit. The riddle of fusion is possibly on the line here. Everybody involved would be wise to tread very thoughtfully. Please make sure you fully understand the Electric Sun idea, as well as how it derives from the observed behavior of the Crookes tube.

        1. Author

          Rambling about how everything is precisely clear to you gets you nowhere. The burden is on you to explain your argument. If you just want to strut like a pigeon on a chess board, I’ll just ignore you.

          1. “There is an experiment suggested by the SNO results that could confirm the Electric Sun’s photospheric origin of neutrinos. It would require continuous measurement of neutrinos of all flavours as a very large sunspot group rotated with the Sun. In this model, sunspot umbrae are not a source of neutrinos so there should be modulation effects associated with the Sun’s rotation that might be measurable with present equipment. Such an experiment, if sensitive enough, offers the possibility of detecting neutrino oscillations in the Sun as they traverse varying proportions of the body of the Sun.”

            http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neutrino-puzzle-is-solved/

            The cool sunspots have no arc-mode activity like the photosphere, so the larger the sunspot area on the Sun, the lower the neutrino count.

            The anti-correlation has no meaning so long as you continue to imagine that neutrinos can only result from the highest temperatures. As I have previously pointed out, temperature is not a reliable way to measure the kinetic activity of a plasma when a double layer or electric field is present. In such a situation, the charged particles may be accelerated without the presence of abundant collisions, and so the temperature does not give the proper indication of the photosphere’s total energy.

            Introducing magnetic fields without the electric currents that cause them may offer a temporary route to save the standard solar model, but it will ultimately lead to nowhere, for it will not help to decode either the location of the fusion, nor the ELECTROmagnetic process which leads to fusion on the Sun.

            You should have picked up on the problems with the standard solar model when you accepted gravitational accretion, but was then told that the Sun was made of hydrogen and helium. That SHOULD have sparked a thought in your head that something wasn’t quite right here, as its not internally consistent that iron should settle on top of hydrogen due to gravity. Eddington and Hoyle were, unlike modern astrophysical students, willing to engage such contradictions …

            “We both believed that the Sun was made mostly of iron, two parts iron to one part hydrogen, more or less. The spectrum of sunlight, chock-a-block with lines of iron, had made this belief seem natural to astronomers for more than fifty years. And there really is a solution to the problem of calculating the Sun’s luminosity that is based on the notion that the Sun is 35 percent hydrogen and 65 percent iron.”

            — Fred Hoyle, recounting his meeting with Arthur Eddington in the Spring of 1940, quote from The Virtue of Heresy by Hilton Ratcliffe, also published in Home is Where the Wind Blows, by Fred Hoyle

            Once you get to this point of (1) thinking that the Sun most likely has an iron core, it’s a very short leap to suggesting that the Sun is the source of an electrical discharge — especially once you (2) pay closer attention to the interstellar filaments that Verschuur has painstakingly extracted from HI hydrogen contour maps, and (3) once you understand that Marklund convection is observed to create these NEUTRAL hydrogen filaments at the centers of the conducting plasma filaments, through a process of recombination. Add to that the (4) electron drift which is observed within the Crookes tube, and which is then naturally inferred for the heliosphere. Failure to understand any one of these four pieces will obstruct an understanding of the entire model.

            All of the components necessary to build a new model are here, but focusing upon one individual piece, to the exclusion of the entire system will lead only to confusion. What obstructs the further elaboration & dissemination of this model is the (1) presentation of the information, (2) the approach of the graduate programs, and (3) the refusal amongst astrophysicists to study the plasma glow discharge and other topics like Marklund convection in IEEE’s Transactions on Plasma Science.

            My own contribution is to point out that demanding that people make their case against the standard solar model, and then giving them a text box to do it with, is also part of the problem. So, we can add (4): There will be no wisdom which emerges from your text box. We need a modern graphical format to manage paradigm change. And that is why I am talking to you right now, for I know how to design this scientific social network. And the annotation of your G+ thread is my first prototype.

          2. Author

            If there were a relation between sunspots and neutrinos, we would see a relation between neutrinos and the solar cycle. While some early articles have shown there might be such a correlation, subsequent analysis with more data have shown pretty conclusively that there is no such correlation.

            http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/513/2/990

            So there’s no evidence to support your assertion.

            The rest of your comment is basically standard EU arguments laced with insults implying that I’m so ignorant of astrophysical plasmas and magnetohydrodynamics that I’m overlooking the most basic of physical principles. Then you finish up with accusations of groupthink, poorly educating graduate students and willful ignorance regarding my profession as a whole. And you wonder why EU isn’t taken seriously?

            I gave you a chance to make your case. You decided to play pigeon chess. I think we’re done.

  2. I think you could use a more rigorous test, F- is over the top, in that case you’re getting a D for dogmatic.

    The people at the EU do a great job of showing the holes in the conventional theories, from Einstein, to the Big Bang, Black Holes, solar, planet, and comet formation.

    They then provide theories that account for a lot that is completing “baffling” to the NASA, and other, scientists. At the very least that puts them on an equal footing with mainstream scientists, constantly baffled by the cosmos (because of incorrect theories).

    Specifically about the arguments you have made, most of them have been addressed by the EU people, including neutrinos. In fact, the mainstream model did not predict the level of nuetrinos present, so using that as a win might be premature (though I understand they have since fixed their theory to fit observations).

    You mentioned that stars should form in nurseries according to EU theory and in a sense they do, they have been found to form on strings another big win for the EU model (the standard model was denying this previously). Just one of many correct predictions that have defied the standard model, going back to Velikovski’s predictions about Venus.

    One point you made seems completely backward. You said “Notice how the most distant ones are the least developed? No? Actually they all look pretty similar, which is exactly what the standard model predicts,” in regards to galaxies then claim ” and what the EU model says absolutely shouldn’t happen.” I’m yet to find when or where the EU predicts anything about this. In fact, its the standard theory that says the most distant ones should be least developed so where are you getting this from?.

    1. Author

      The dogmatic accusation is a common accusation main when someone points out basic flaws in EU models. The EU proponents actually don’t do a great job pointing out flaws in standard models. What they typically do is make wild unsubstantiated claims and then accuse established scientists of bias and closed mindedness. The neutrino situation is a good example of this. EU claims fusion doesn’t occur in the Sun’s core, when we clearly see a distribution of neutrinos from the core. EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.

      EU argues that quasars are the seeds of galaxies, and that their high-redshift is not due to cosmic inflation. So under the model you should see high-redshift quasars, then decreasing redshift as galaxies develop. This is specifically state in the works I cited. Of course I’m sure you could reply with “not all EU proponents”, and cite some work that says otherwise.

      This actually gets to another difficulty with EU proponents, specifically that claims made are often contradictory or nebulous. The only thing EU proponents seem to be in agreement about is the fact that standard big-bang cosmology is obviously wrong. So assign me grades if you like, but until EU can address the fundamental problems in its own model it doesn’t have much to offer those seeking to understand the universe.

      1. “EU argues that quasars are the seeds of galaxies, and that their high-redshift is not due to cosmic inflation. So under the model you should see high-redshift quasars, then decreasing redshift as galaxies develop. This is specifically state in the works I cited. Of course I’m sure you could reply with “not all EU proponents”, and cite some work that says otherwise.”

        I see more clearly your point on that. However, I am not sure if the EU necessarily says red-shift can’t correlate with velocity, just seems to say it doesn’t necessarily (based on certain evidence especially work done by Halton Arp). That being said I am not well versed enough in their writing to tell you exactly the EU’s “official” position on redshift.

        Anyway even if this theory doesn’t account for everything (what does?) if it is making correct predictions on enough occasions, to my simple mind, that is worth looking into.

        One thing specifically stood out to me was their predictions about comet formation and their activity upon entering our sun’s environment, also their theories relating plasma discharge events to early worldwide myths. This last point, about myths, is similar to Velikovsky, who though in many ways was “proven wrong”, made many successful predictions with his theory counter to the mainstream at the time. So with that in mind, and given how much I’ve learned about our solar system looking at their material, I’d say what they are doing is quite valuable and necessary. And of course, counter-arguments are valuable as well in the search for truth. Though I assume your take on it is that these EU characters are just wasting everyone’s time XD. We can agree to disagree on that.

      2. Wait a minute.

        “EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.”

        Now that contradicts what you said in your article. So either between February and July of 2014 you learned a little more about EU theory – but decided to critique it anyway in your state of ignorance – or you just lied your ass off knowing full well that EU can accommodate solar neutrinos.

        The solar neutrinos are a problem for standard theory, not EU theory, yet through verbal contortions you try to make the reverse seem true. And after all that, you have the nerve to complain that we accuse you of being dogmatic!

        Can’t think of a single reason why we would do that. [eye roll]

        #AnotherDoucheyMainstream”Scientist”

        1. Author

          I’m sure I have learned more about EU since I wrote this article a year ago. The particular works I cited in the article don’t mention neutrinos, and claim an electrically powered Sun. When we first measured solar neutrinos at a level much lower than expected for nuclear fusion rates, EU fans announced triumphantly that the core model must be wrong. When the solar neutrino problem was solved by flavor changing, EU supporters called it a fudge model to keep the outdated core fusion claim. Then we demonstrated flavor changing here on Earth with particle accelerators, thus completely solving the solar neutrino problem, and now EU claims surface fusion to account for the neutrinos that are clearly emitted by the Sun. Although there are also EU supporters who still claim the Sun is powered without fusion at all. The PDF book I cited makes that claim, and still does.

          I thought it important to allow your comment because I think it demonstrates one of the major challenges in dealing with EU supporters. If you go through my comments on this post you’ll notice that I focus on actual claims and try to provide at least some citation of those claims. When I point out where EU doesn’t agree with observational evidence, I link to that as well. But the counter argument I get from EU supporters often follows your argument. I’m a liar, dogmatic, and “douchey.”

          Personal attacks carry no weight in a scientific argument, so why do EU fans like you seem so eager to use them?

        2. “EU can accommodate solar neutrinos”

          It can? I don’t believe you, Matthew Alexander. But perhaps I’m ignorant … Please cite relevant peer-reviewed papers, which start with a clear exposition of core EU assumptions, and proceed to derive the expected neutrino flux (oh, and which also show these derived fluxes are consistent with all relevant observations). Then I’ll believe you.

    2. OH can you explain the solar neutrinos? Or the fact that your best theory implies that the Solar wind carries electrons into the sun, yet the opposite is often seen?
      In your later reply you say this: “One thing specifically stood out to me was their predictions about comet formation and their activity upon entering our sun’s environment, also their theories relating plasma discharge events to early worldwide myths”
      No it isn’t (at least the part about their predictions about comets): http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10371174#post10371174
      ” In fact, the mainstream model did not predict the level of nuetrinos present, so using that as a win might be premature (though I understand they have since fixed their theory to fit observations).” Again, no. That was solved years ago: https://briankoberlein.com/2014/10/05/mixing/
      It’s funny how you accuse others of dogmatism yet you don’t adreess Mr. Koberlein’s points, instead just saying that the EU theorists have ‘figured it out’ and that any problems with it can be ignored, not to mention that science moves on…isn’t that hypocrisy on your part?

      1. “Solved” – https://briankoberlein.com/2014/10/05/mixing/

        “Of course you might argue that this is a pretty convoluted model just to explain solar neutrinos. Bold claims require bold evidence, so what makes us so confident that flavor-changing neutrinos with fuzzy masses really is the solution? We’ll look at the answer to that question next time.”

    3. This thing is a year old, but I hope that someone notices this.

      Velikovsky wasn’t right about Venus. He was dead wrong in every respect, and being right within an order of magnitude about surface temperature because you made a lucky guess isn’t the same thing as being right because you came up with a model that worked.

      Stopped clocks are right twice a day but you wouldn’t use it to tell time or say that the guy who broke your watch so it stops came up with some great new way to tell time.

      The standard models aren’t just pulled out of thin air. There are multiple lines of evidence for them beyond what Koberlein has here. For example, if the electric universe model was correct, then nuclear power plants would simply not function. There would be no way for the relativistic effects or weak nuclear force-mediated phenomena to work. If relativity were wrong the element gold would simply not be colored gold. Nor would it have the properties we associate with it.

      If the fusion model of the sun were completely wrong then there’s no need for stars to be as massive as they are; if gravity didn’t work then no space probe would have gotten where they are.

      The EU models address none of these things. Relativity (to name one) does. Relativity is why magnets work. Absent relativity they wouldn’t.

      Do you understand what is happening here? EU models have to rewrite whole areas of physics that have been worked out and tested a zillion goddamned times.

  3. I am a layperson – so please forgive me for any ignorance. What I observe from the back and forth between the author and Chris is that Chris seems to be explaining things while the author is acting defensively. I would rather the author answer the specifics of the explanations rather than fall back on dogma. I really don’t see anything wrong is questioning Einstein, The Big Bang or anything else in science. It would seem that this is precisely what Science should always be doing. There are few experiments that always follow prediction. I know of the double slit experiment and what it shows us. But other than that – I don’t know of any experiments that prove the existence of Black Holes nor any other evidence of the Big Band than the observation of Red Shift. Could Red Shift be explained via the or A EU theory? Shouldn’t we at least look into it in an honest open minded way using scientific methods of testing?

    1. Author

      It probably looks defensive because there are other parts of conversations on Google+ that aren’t here. Chris got himself banned on my Google+ feeds for laying accusations against readers and the scientific establishment in general. I eventually blocked him here as well. So yes, my patience has grown thin with him.

      There is nothing wrong with questioning Einstein, the big bang, or any other scientific model. However there is a difference between questioning and denialism, which is where much of EU proponents have gone. Part of what Chris asserts in the comments is that nuclear fusion occurs near the solar surface rather than the Sun’s core. The problem with that assertion is that there is massive evidence to demonstrate fusion in the core. There’s neutrino observations, temperature gradients seen in the photosphere, helioseismology data, etc. Core fusion is a very robust model that is well supported by evidence. Chris claims that all of this is wrong. So he cites a few papers here and there, and completely ignores the evidence that supports core fusion. Arguing with denialism gets tiring after a while.

      The red shift of galaxies is actually just one small part of the evidence supporting the big bang. For a recent summary check out this post: https://briankoberlein.com/2014/07/01/rube/

      EU ideas have been looked at honestly, and much of it was found to be in disagreement with observations in the 60s. There are parts of it that are actually valid, particularly some (not all) of the plasma physics work, but the ideas that redshift isn’t due to cosmic expansion, the big bang never happened, ideas on quasars, and the idea that the Sun is electric are totally and provably false.

        1. Author

          The research articles the popsci post references are talking about turbulent flow within the middle region of the Sun, which is difficult to model. None of it counters the evidence of core fusion.

    2. I think that the discovery of the background microwave radiation is the main observed verification of the Big Bang

  4. Again, I am a layperson but understand the basics of Einstein’s Special and General Theories as well as the basics or particle physics as it relates to the Standard Model. But I do find the ideas behind EU to be at least interesting enough to provoke serious thought. Brian, don’t you at least think it merits some scientific investigation in the laboratory rather than a general dissection of an email correspondence?

    1. Author

      For many lay-readers, the EU approach seems so much simpler and clear. It has a kind of common-sense feel to it that really speaks to those skeptical of dark matter/energy and the like. Unfortunately it doesn’t hold up under scientific investigation. The data simply doesn’t support it.

      1. Brian, your very comments hints at why the EU approach seems to attract sceptics. You mention that the EU does not hold up under scientific investigation, and that the data does not support it. The EU suggests MANY things, some of which is standard mainstream science, supported by science and upheld by the data.

        Your comment also implies that mainstream science does hold up, and is supported by the data. This too is a nonsense. Mainstream science does a great disservice by pretending that it has the best answers to EVERYTHING, and that competing theories have NOTHING to offer.

        Lay readers and academics can see through this argument, and that mainstream science has no interest in INVESTIGATING other claims, only in DEBUNKING other claims. This is not science.

        1. Author

          Apparently you didn’t read my comment, where I noted that EU models do agree with some observations. They just don’t agree with them in the main, particularly their wildest claims about electric stars, redshift and the like. Also nowhere have I ever said that standard models answer everything. In fact if you would actually read some of my posts instead of making drive-by comments, you would see where I have noted weaknesses in standard models all the time.

          There are lots of competing theories that can have things to offer, not just EU. But so long as many EU supporters continue to ignore evidence contradicting their wildest claims, they do EU a huge disservice.

          1. Thanks for your reply. That’s not how it works. Standard Cosmology is contradicted by observations, hence the invention of dark matter, inflation, black holes etc There is no physical, or independent evidence for any of them. I don’t dismiss Standard Cosmology because of its flaws. I accept that Standard Cosmology may have more going for, but I am also happy to see whether the Electric Universe can shed some light on certain aspects of cosmology. I’m just not happy in throwing everything out, because it doesn’t all work perfectly.

          2. Author

            Standard cosmology is not (on the whole) contradicted by observations. There’s a common misconception that things like dark matter, dark energy, black holes and the like are simply “made up” to account for problems in the standard model. This simply isn’t true. They are all supported by observational evidence, and make predictions that have been confirmed by observation. I’ve written about this numerous times. For example:

            A summary of the LCDM (standard cosmology) model and evidence supporting it: https://briankoberlein.com/2014/07/01/rube/

            A two-part summary of dark matter vs. MoND: https://briankoberlein.com/2013/10/24/beautiful-theory-ugly-data/ and https://briankoberlein.com/2013/10/24/ugly-theory-beautiful-data/

            Evidence of supermassive black holes, specifically the one in our galaxy: https://briankoberlein.com/2013/09/21/massive-evidence/

            Evidence of binary supermassive black holes: https://briankoberlein.com/2013/11/05/space-detective/

            I’ve pointed out where there are weaknesses in standard cosmology:

            How dark matter doesn’t match dwarf galaxies well: https://briankoberlein.com/2014/06/16/difficulty-dwarfs/

            BICEP2 and early inflation: https://briankoberlein.com/2014/06/21/papers-please/

            How the Higgs field seems to contradict cosmic inflation: https://briankoberlein.com/2014/06/25/puff-logic/

            And I’ve pointed out the few areas where EU ideas do match observation (or did until we got more data):

            Tired light matches one cosmology test: https://briankoberlein.com/2014/01/15/the-shape-of-things-2/

            Tired light doesn’t match cosmic microwave background: https://briankoberlein.com/2014/01/16/im-tired/

            How early evidence supported quantized redshift, and later evidence disproved it: https://briankoberlein.com/2014/05/30/seeing-red/

            All of these posts focus on the evidence and how certain models agree or disagree with them. The simple fact is that EU claims of no big bang, no cosmic inflation, etc. are in disagreement with well established physical evidence. When I point out weaknesses in standard cosmology, I don’t get accusations of being a fringe scientist with an agenda. When I point out where EU models disagree with evidence I’m accused of being closed minded, ignoring evidence and pushing an agenda.

            Not once have I seen a supporter of the electric universe acknowledge any weakness in their model. This is one of the reasons EU advocates don’t get very far with the scientific community. If you aren’t willing to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a model, there isn’t a way to move forward based upon the evidence.

          3. “There’s a common misconception that things like dark matter, dark energy, black holes and the like are simply “made up” to account for problems in the standard model. This simply isn’t true. They are all supported by observational evidence”

            No disrespect, but that is nonsense. Dark matter, black holes and inflation were all made up (ie.they are hypothetical) to attempt to explain anomalous observations. They have to be supported by definition. You can’t then use the same observations to retrospectively claim that they support hypothetical physics.

            It would be like me claiming that the dent (observation) in my wife’s car was due to “dark forces” and then claiming that dark forces are supported by observational evidence (dents).

            As Sheldon says in The Big Bang, you are putting the cart before the horse.

            Of course there are additional observations that are consistent with the new physics, but we must be careful to note what is hypothesis, and what is supported by what. The same goes with the Electric Universe.

          4. Author

            Actually, you just restated the misconception. The evidence for things like dark matter, dark energy and black holes are not substantiated by the evidence they were initially proposed to explain. If you look at my links on dark matter, for example, you’ll see how the galactic rotation anomaly stirred introduction of both dark matter and MoND, how each of them made clear predictions about new (and at the time unobserved) phenomena, and how later observations supported dark matter and contradicted MoND. Further observations of even different phenomena confirm not only dark matter, but a specific type known as cold dark matter. At no point is the motivating phenomena used as evidence to confirm a theory.

          1. Yes it does. Where’s the water or ice ??
            Eu clearly predicted NO water on the comet, rocky composition, water in the coma and tail due to electric discharge, neon like glow and absolutely no water emanating from any holes, geysers or anything similar.
            All of those predictions have been confirmed.

          2. Author

            You keep stating EU works like a broken record, but when I asked you on Google+ to show one clear example from start to finish, your response was to throw insults calling be “blind” and that I’m just listening to “whatever high priests of big bang nonsense tell me,” and if I had “half a brain” I’d realize that. Simply stating “EU works, astrophysics doesn’t you poopy head.” doesn’t cut it. I gave you a chance to prove your case, you decided to throw a tantrum and start name-calling.

  5. Brian, I can see that you post links to researching evidence and I not only appreciate it but as soon as I have time – I will look at them all. My feeling so far is that there needs to be a more open approach to science. What I mean is that (please correct me where I am wrong) that students of physics (as the main example but not only) mostly need school authority and/or government grants in order to proceed in research and to even get enough “room” for their thesis. Established scientist also need to live on grants and such from schools and government. Now, from the information I get from friends who seem to know about these things – the minute a student or scientist starts to buck the established “scene” and wish to explore outside that box – they are denied the monies necessary to accomplish said research. If I am wrong here – can you show me a situation of the government allowing the monies to go to a research project that bucks the established Standard Model of Particle Physics as well as the Cosmology connected to such? If not – then I at least must concede to the EU that they not only may have real points of science ignored but that that is actually were most of the negative reactions come from. In other words – they wish to be on the winning side i.e. the money train for good or bad. Does this sum it up as to the situation? I am not proposing a conspiracy as such but am saying that these government money outlays are going to go where the majority wishes it to go regardless of its veracity. If true – there lays the anger of communities like EU and actually this is where people like you should be very angry. Science should be a completely open room for all scientists to have their papers peer reviewed and then have those ideas tested in laboratories. If the math they come up with proves its predictions then we have something. And the EU people MUST come up with math for it is through the math that we see it all EQUALS out. That is what a mathematical formula is. Two sides of an equation must equal out. Or am I wrong here. I am sure that the EU people can provide math but it must be peer reviewed if in a written paper. I am off since I am a layperson? Please advise me where I have erred. Thanks Brian and the rest of you out there.

    1. Author

      I think there are several factors that come into play here. The first is how large projects are funded by government agencies. Governments focus on projects that can give a big bang for the buck, both scientifically and politically. So the type of projects funded are bound to be more conservative in nature. There are, however, examples of government funding toward blue-sky projects such as warp drive and zero point energy. They don’t get a great deal of money, since they are considered high risk, but there is some. One aspect of physics related to EU is plasma astrophysics. This is an area where this is quite a bit of funding to be had. There are, in fact, entire programs dedicated to plasma astrophysics. They do real research, and it is published in peer reviewed journals.

      Grant funding is very tight, and even mainstream projects fail to get funded. After all, which is more important, exoplanet research or distant galaxies? I agree it would be nice if it were easier for everyone to get grant funding, but that will only happen if as a society we decide there should be much more money given to science.

      The idea that EU models are somehow denied peer review is an interesting one. Cries of censorship have motivated alternative journals to allow for EU publications, and the establishment of vixra.org to counter (the censored) arxiv.org. But most journals are in fact open to any submission, so long as it meets a certain standard of rigor. Astronomy is an example where several amateurs have published work in peer reviewed journals. But then astronomy is one field where there are lots of very very talented non-professionals.

      EU research can be peer reviewed, and it can be published in peer reviewed journals, but only if it meets a certain scientific standard. You actually see some of their work make it into the journals, such as Lerner’s paper on the Tolman test, or some of the papers on solar neutrino variability. Papers aren’t denied just because they are controversial. They’re denied when they can’t substantiate the claims they make.

      If the EU model really worked, then there are several steps they could take:

      1. Stop making accusations about “mainstream” scientists being biased, closed minded and the like. Whining and accusations are for crank theories.

      2. Start acting like real scientists. That means ripping apart EU models with an eye toward the standard models. Understand where standard models work, and accept where EU models fail.

      3. Stop using vixra and non-traditional journals. Both lack scientific standards, and using them only gives the illusion of scientific achievement.

      4. Focus on getting published in established, mainstream, peer reviewed journals. If a paper can’t make it there, then it isn’t good enough. Go back, revise, and try again.

      If, as a community, EU supporters followed these steps, and if the data clearly supports their models, then they will gain ground. Until then they will continue to be viewed as crank physics.

      1. Thanks Brian for your quick but very thoughtful reply. Since there is established peer reviewed Plasma Astrophysicists out there – then really this is probably all settled. But it still poses questions and since most sincere scientists – folk like you Brian – can say that there are still questions in GR and BB theories. Especially given that most of it requires some explanation of gravity if we call it a very weak force and not just the resistance to momentum for a given mass. And this very weak force is considered very weak indeed compared to EM for example or even the strong nuclear force. We hardly have a coherent explanation of exactly what is gravity nevertheless to have a constant. Or am I wrong here Brian? You would know from a scientific standpoint whether my last comment had any merit or not.

      2. I would add to my reply to you Brian that my knowledge base is such that I understand the difference between a Lepton and a Fermion. I understand the basics of what men like Einstein, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, Feynman – not to mention Tesla thought about reality. And I think we must never lose sight that we are all arguing about reality. Just how does it fit with experimental data. But how do we know that experimental data is correct? There is a process and I will now explain it as I know it to be. It doesn’t have to be the way anyone including you Brian think. I am not in any competition unlike SC. My comments below are just a glimmer of how I see things. Remember always Brain that I have nothing but admiration for people like Einstein, Dirac, Bohrs, Pauli, and all of the field theorist to boot. It all sends shivers down my spine sometimes whenever I start to understand any of it.

        Our personal observations are all byproducts of chemical interactions in our bodies – which act as layers of filters and/or lens – that are directed by a massive pharmaceutical factory called our brain. This organism interprets the reflections of light as processed by a a limited structure call our optical system. This in turn relates seen light with memories that are implicitly connected to abstract things called words. Language becomes our medium (sort of like a boson) that carries information (light reflections processed into a very limited eye-brain system (EBLS) which when processed becomes our program (language) from which we share that information with each other.

        Many have joined their EBLS together to share information that has literally been all of our sciences, history, culture, our universe. Even our ability to share the differences of our observations from which we create a language of compromise or concession. In other words, we either agree to join our ideas based on our EBLS or one of us concedes that the other is right from the one supplying more matter from EBLS than the other can. That matter is what we observe, use and speak about. My own conclusions are based on my EBLS and it says to me that this universe is much more than our very limited body systems or EBLS can possibly process. At least at this point in the EBLS evolution. So to conclude without making a complete fool of myself (if I haven’t already I can thank your and everyone else EBLS Lol) – I think that since we can all agree that our EBLS are a limited structure – we can keep an open mind about sharing information via each of our EBLS. Meaning – while using whit like Cicero did – we can have fun playing each of our EBLS against each others as well as finally and much more productively we will join our EBLS together to create a program that can process much much more of the information which is the Cosmos and the Quantum world and maybe much, much more. Our inner life for example which I know as spiritual.

      3. I just like to think of it as us all having fun together sharing information. I love to share information whenever I receive it and process it. Why keep it to myself if it is about science or spirituality? As long as I continue to concede that the other fellow or lady has information at least as important as mine if not more so.

      4. BTW, the E includes all the senses. The equipment we use to replace our more limited apparatus extends out limit but it too is limited when measured in ratio to what actually is. What is observed is either all there is or not. We would have to include the smallest constituents of matter as they can’t be seen nor “seen” but can only be measured as frequencies. One can say that frequencies are all there is and that wouldn’t go against SR in equating energy and mass. It is the observer in the wave/particle duality that distinguishes whether or not something is something or somewhere and that too is mostly a measurement of frequency and that too is interpreted by an EBLS or a collective of such. I am not saying that any one individual determines the extent of everything – it is just that language becomes that system like a field or a medium from which that information encoded as language or the L – for the entire collective as that is the only way it would work. The alternative would be like trying to explain particle physics without math at all to someone who didn’t speak your language on bit. If you used the math – which is an universal language or guage invariant – you get communication of information. It is quite simple. What I am getting at or trying to is that we may need to look into factors which directly relate to the observer more than the observed. If we do – I think we may be able to master just how we can all relate to the universe about us. In a way that would be good for all. This would be a reprogramming of language which would allow for a different seeing of our collective being. Maybe the explanations that we have now will seem quaint in the future when that happens. This would be evolution acting in a very interesting way. I haven’t a clue whether or not EU has anything to relate to this subject. I like good ol’ GR, SR, SM models so far until shown another that is better. I just have a willingness to see an idea out if it has any logic in its premise. EU does show some logic. Maybe we are somehow diminishing EM or what it can do. We shouldn’t close our minds on either side. The problem I have with most of the EU stuff I’ve seen is their out and out vehemence against any relativity discussion, nuclear fusion as it relates to the sun and such. Instead of using language as a means of bringing together their ideas with GR and Atomic science they seem to want to chop it out of science which is ridiculous. But neither should the other side use such tactics as to condemn anything to do with EU ideas without at least thinking it out thoroughly that is and watch our language as it is all we have in the end.

      5. funding is based directly from the peer process, application for funds are made, the application is peer reviewed to judge if the funds are been put to good use. this process maintains the current paradigm as know one is willing to fund science that could falsify their life’s work in a stroke. however if your request is to research a field that could strengthen the current paradigm then alls well. this is why you vehemently attack EU for to accept it has any merit is to accept your own efforts could have been wasted. the standard model is full of holes and massive fudge factors, the need of a major overhaul is apparent to all accept those like yourself that have put all your eggs in one basket. how quickly you all quietly sloped off after the eager await of the G2 gas cloud to be gobbled up by the alleged SMBH at the milky ways centre decided it did not require the meal of the day and the gas floated on past without effect.

        1. Author

          Ah, the old conspiracy theory chestnut. Two problems with that accusation. First, there is plenty of plasma astrophysics research being funded. Second, data taken by observatories and space satellites are in the public domain. Not just the images, the actual data. EU fans could use that to make their case, but instead they just use images to argue that since it quacks like a duck it must be one.

          And apparently continuing to publish research about G2 constitutes ignoring it?

  6. I also don’t need any other debate forum then this – but boy it would be a gas. I know – that is just entertainment. But you know – people like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss have done well by it so why not?

  7. I see you are now moderating and excluding posts, even though they are polite, respectful and informative. I guess I was wrong about you.

    1. Author

      Obviously comments are moderated. Spam, off-topic comments, link walls all get removed at my discretion. Comments are never edited, though.

      1. I followed your format above, providing links to back up a statement. To allow only your side of the argument is not fair.

        1. Hi Helio Spheric what format are you referring to? If you mean links – please specify. I find that Brian is honest in his answers. I also see he has allowed my very wordy outpourings to be on this blog so – if I can get my mamby jamby stuff here – what problem are you having? You can’t espouse science without using any evidence. I am not saying that science is wrong or you are wrong or GR is right or wrong. I don’t have the experience, the education nor evidence to say such a thing. So I am only using philosophy to ask a question about the observer.

          A mathematical formula isn’t evidence. It is a start in the conversation. The next step is peer reviewing the paper which will not only include said math – but ALSO include an EXPLANATION. As it pertains to this particular subject – this explanation would have to clearly outline just HOW the EU model clearly eliminates the GR model by describing the alternative explanation. GR provides explanations as to how space and time work in relation to gravity and mass. Precisely how does SC math explain the workings of space, time, mass and gravity? Again, I still have no answer on how gravity being so very, very weak compared with EM can work on EM in such a way as to make it inescapable from this gravity which is so much weaker. So the EU guys still can say that something may be wrong with the GR explanation of black holes. Or there are no black holes if I get them right. Either way, they still need to provide a clear explanation that REPLACES GR. It has a lot going against it including a century of many brilliant people’s work. I find it arrogant to say that all that work in theory and experimentation including all the technology that was a product there of is all wrong without a clear enough explanation on not only how it is wrong but what the actual alternative is both in math and in the explanation.

          From SC there is math. He doesn’t hold PhD in Physics but instead is a mathematician. As such, he isn’t used to providing explanations. Showing there is a problem with the math is a nice start but it isn’t anywhere near a finish. Einstein, Dirac and the other greats all provided not only math but explanations. Now that doesn’t mean we stop with them – but any improvement needs more than just math. Feynman provided diagrams to explain the math which was absolutely brilliant. What does SC provide but a pointing out that there is a problem with math in GR? The EU people are all about doing experiments with electricity and explaining just how that would work on a cosmic scale but provide no math at all to back it up. How is that possible? You have to have a formula in math to create a theory. The observations are quite good but the explanation is wanting. We observe interesting things in the universe like string like things looking like they could be electricity based – but where is the proof other that it looks like or appears like? The observers need a language (math) which can then be interpreted into whatever language the reader needs e.g. English for us in this forum. That is how I understand physics to work. The math or universal language is then explained in a conversational type language such as English so that all speakers of that language can read the same thing and discuss and learn from the same thing. How are the EU people and SC going about it? They have very interesting observations and a mathematician and the two don’t meet. They are separate entities just yelling out about how unfair science is. Stop crying. Many an inventor and scientist has been scooped because of factors sometimes not under their control like the early 60s postal strike in Great Britain which allowed someone (I forget the names involved) to get the Nobel and another with the same idea not. Did the other guy cry and cry and say science is all wrong? No, he went on with a very distinguished career. Stop crying and provide the math plus explanation that works together as a clear and precise alternative to GR period s- o blokes like me can learn which is correct. Thank you.

          1. Author

            To be completely open and honest, I’m on the edge of deleting some of your ramblings as well.

          2. Thanks Brian for clearing up some issues regarding peer reviewing. I guess we may need to make that process a better one than it is if we allow UFO people to review a paper about science including EU or physics, etc.

            By the way – I do believe that we have been and may still be visited by UFOs. I saw a video of Vandenberg Air Force base where a test on a missile was destroyed by an UFO that circled the non-weaponized warhead and then destroyed it and then flew off at extreme high speed. While I am a supporter of UFO research – that doesn’t mean that people who do UFO research are qualified to peer review a paper on physics. This needs to be fixed if this is the case.

        2. Helio Spheric,

          You can argue that since the math of GR has a problem or two the explanation is all wrong. That flies in the face of evidence such as GPS. We have GPS from science provided by GR and Quantum sciences.
          If it is all wrong then how does GPS work? How does the transistor – arguably the most important invention in human history – work? It is a result of quantum physics. There is math and explanations abundant on how this works. You have to show just how this works despite the standard models of science being wrong with their math if such is so. The explanation must coincide with math in order to be presented in a paper ready for peer reviewing. Does SC or you or anyone in the EU have such a paper? Please provide the peer reviewed paper that shows that the math of GR is not only wrong – but that the corrected math shown in this same paper provides the alternative explanation for time, space, matter, gravity and the existence or non such of black holes. This answer must jive with evidence such as red shift, ect. Data easily provided by the Hubble Telescope and other questions that other entities such as CERN can provide. You can not choose to ignore GPS technology and not give a clear alternative explanations and at the same time say it is all wrong. That is having your cake and eating it. You can have either. Not both ways. Science is wrong – prove it with BOTH the math from SC or whomever AND the explanation or quit crying foul.

        3. Author

          Actually what you did is state that some mainstream are biased against EU because they aren’t open to unorthodox ideas. You then posted a series of links:

          An article on cognitive bias, which is a known effect in general.

          Link to a news story about flaws in peer review (the article doesn’t reference the actual work)

          Link to personal accounts of Nobel laureates who faced opposition to and rejection of their ideas until their results were found convincing enough (and revolutionary enough) to award them the highest scientific honor. (Proof that the system doesn’t work?)

          Link to a personal website on political suppression.

          Link to a press release about scientists ignoring “maverick” scientists. (Again, no link to actual research)

          Link to an article arguing that mainstream science suppresses the work of alternative science. The article was published in a “peer reviewed” journal whose topics include ufology, astrology, and reincarnation.

          Another link to a personal blog.

          The links were largely off-topic, and largely unsubstantiated hearsay. I don’t edit comments, only accept or reject them. So I rejected yours.

          You’ve accused me of being unfair by not allowing you unmoderated access to the comments, but let’s be clear that this is not a public forum. It is a moderated discussion on a personal blog.

          1. You wrote: “Actually what you did is state that some mainstream are biased against EU because they aren’t open to unorthodox ideas. You then posted a series of links:”

            I said that some mainstream peer review is biased against new ideas in general.

            I provided some links to back up the claims. Sure, there were no peer reviewed research findings, but included links from more than one scientist.

            While I respect your criticisms on the publications, I feel that readers to your blog have been denied an opportunity to assess them themselves.

            I still feel that excluding them is unfair, but as you say, it is your blog.

          2. Author

            You wrote, and I quote: “I suspect that the reason that the EU people use non-traditional journals, is because the journals can not handle unorthodox ideas.” I think what I said was a fair paraphrase of your statement.

          3. oh Brian, OH BRIAN! to now start with the its my ball and i’ll decide the games played is a little childish in the least. that said i’ll give you your ball back and bid you good day

          4. Author

            It’s more childish to bring a hockey stick to a basketball game and then complain that the other kids won’t let you play.

  8. Keep it coming, folks! I am learning a lot about Brian today, including these (cherry-picked) quotes from ratemyprofessors.com …

    “sadistic”

    “… definitely thinks he has more authority and purpose in life than he really does. Just kind of a cold hearted person …”

    “he is an extremely rude person … he just replies like you’re an idiot”

    “Misleading”

    “probably the rudest person I’ve come across in life”

    “Terrible professor, will talk down to you if you even show the slightest sign of weakness. He’s an astrophysicist, so if you aren’t than [sic] that sucks for you …”

    (This post will self-destruct in 1 minute!)

    Seriously though, there is a contradiction here between Brian’s assertion that he’s giving the EU a fair shake, and his tendency to censor critiques. I am hearing from people who were actually censored in the G+ thread now, as well …

    1. Author

      I’ll actually allow this comment, Chris, because I think it emphasizes why you were blocked from G+ and this blog. After haranguing my readers on Google+, and link-spamming my blog while accusing me of bias and ignorance, you’ve decided scour the internet to gather ammunition for a personal attack. Bravo, good Sir. Bravo.

      The original comment in its entirety:

      Keep it coming, folks! I am learning a lot about Brian today, including these (cherry-picked) quotes from ratemyprofessors.com …

      “sadistic”

      “… definitely thinks he has more authority and purpose in life than he really does. Just kind of a cold hearted person …”

      “he is an extremely rude person … he just replies like you’re an idiot”

      “Misleading”

      “probably the rudest person I’ve come across in life”

      “Terrible professor, will talk down to you if you even show the slightest sign of weakness. He’s an astrophysicist, so if you aren’t than [sic] that sucks for you …”

      (This post will self-destruct in 1 minute!)

      Seriously though, there is a contradiction here between Brian’s assertion that he’s giving the EU a fair shake, and his tendency to censor critiques. I am hearing from people who were actually censored in the G+ thread now, as well …

  9. martin Is Brian as an “orthodox” scientist not prepared to give electric universe theory “a fair crack of the whip” because it will interfere with his “fame; status; wealth and power” which he clearly seeks.? This is what constitutes personality weakness. Where is his integrity? Orthodox scientists haven’t got reliable methods of dating. Does he really believe in the big bang theory albeit an incredible 13 billion years ago.?

    1. Author

      Again with the accusations of bias. Quite simply the evidence doesn’t support the electric universe very well. The evidence does, on the other hand, support a 13.8 billion year old universe beginning with a “big bang” pretty strongly. Interesting that you decided to imply that my bias is driven by a desire for fame and money. I teach at a mid-level university and write about science on a blog for free. I’m clearly in it for the money…

      1. And yet the current model consistently fails to make accurate predictions. This in itself should invoke reasonable doubt.

        The speed of light is considered a fixed constant and yet accumulated data clearly shows that it fluctuates. To median-out this phenomena is poor scientific practice.

        1. Author

          No, there is no experimental evidence that the speed of light fluctuates. There have been theoretical speculations on the idea, but no evidence to support it.

          1. “In my talk I said that the published values of the speed of light dropped by about 20 km/sec between 1928 and 1945. Carroll’s “careful rebuttal” consisted of a table copied from Wikipedia showing the speed of light at different dates, with a gap between 1926 and 1950, omitting the very period I referred to. His other reference (http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/speedoflight.html) does indeed give two values for the speed of light in this period, in 1928 and 1932-35, and sure enough, they were 20 and 24km/sec lower than the previous value, and 14 and 18 km/sec lower than the value from 1947 onwards.”

            1926: 299,798
            1928: 299,778
            1932-5: 299,774
            1947: 299,792

            http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/speedoflight.html

          2. Author

            You have to take Sheldrake with a huge grain of salt. Most of his claims about physics are wrong. In terms of the speed of light, you can’t simply quote “best values” from different experiments and claim it’s proof of speed fluctuations. The values you cite, for example, don’t have any uncertainties given. I’ll talk more about it in tomorrow’s post.

          3. I am inclined to agree in regard to different experiments.

            Can you provide examples of where Sheldrake makes inaccurate claims?

            Almost all of the models in place are founded on assumptions that are yet to be undeniably verified, and yet it is common practice to assert otherwise. This mentality can only be a hindrance to progressive scientific inquiry.

            If one can prove that a.) Physical interaction will always be the same and b.) That belief has no affect over scientific observation, then it would be reasonable to adhere to these certainties.

            As it stands, current models appear very reasonable to the logical mind, but this is not to say that they are in fact logical.

          4. Author

            Sheldrake’s claim regarding the speed of light is wrong. His claims about what science is and isn’t (The Science Delusion) is wrong. Morphic Resonance is nonsense. As to your other point, while scientific models can use assumptions as part of their model, those assumptions can also be tested, and in most cases have been tested. With the speed of light, for example, we assume it is and has been constant. What we know experimentally from astronomical observations is that it has fluctuated by no more than 1 part in 10 billion over the last 7 billion years. Until there is solid evidence to the contrary, assuming light to be constant is perfectly justified.

          5. For the most part that was an informative and reasonable response.

            To claim something as nonsense is not a stance of scientific merit, although that is to assume you are taking one within that statement.

            It would be equally reasonable for me to claim that memory stored within the brain is nonsense. The accumulated evidence also supports the idea of the brain being a receiver/ transmitter.

            Assumptions are valuable and necessary, but potentially detrimental if they solely influence the disregard for other potentialities.

          6. Author

            Sheldrake’s morphic resonance is nonsense because he presents it as a scientific model, but instead uses it to explain any “phenomena” he claims is real, while explaining away any scientific study that clearly shows the phenomena doesn’t exist, therefore rendering it completely untestable. It is pseudoscience and technobabble. Calling it nonsense is actually being kind. It is more accurately fraud and ignorance peddling.

          7. Below you state “…. scientific study that clearly shows the phenomena doesn’t exist”. Excuse me for my ignorance, but I was under the impression that it is not possible to prove a negative, eg. prove that something does not exist. Please advice.

          8. Author

            Blind studies have been done on his claims regarding being stared at, for example, and lead to null results. Multiple experiments have shown his claims to be wrong. Rather than accepting that these studies, Sheldrake declares that the process of scientific study interferes with the results. So a “skeptic” will prevent a positive result from occurring. Hence, it’s unscientific nonsense.

          9. it doesnt seem right to reference your own blog in response to alexs post regarding the speed of light. im not saying you are wrong, just that
            it feels like cheating.

    2. this thread has officially gone off the rails.. geez. i really wanted to chime in three pages (and a year) ago, but this has gotten too ridiculous to have anything to do with science! i dont even know what to say anymore. for the love of pete, can everyone just chill the ineffabling out?! does anyone read this stuff before posting? where is the collective integrity here? why has this become personal attacks and completely off topic rambling? (oooo! speaking of rambling, i just love researching freshwater ecosystems, let me digress…) brian, for a personal blog, im honestly surprised you havent deleted more comments, in order to at least keep things succinct and comprehensible. but im glad you didnt, this thread has become some sort of quasi social thought experiment. it has been entertaining to watch the madness. today i learned a little about astrophysics and a lot about psychology. cheers and keep an open mind. that goes for both sides of the eu v sm debate!

      p.s. brian, did you ever answer anthony regos question about gravity, and if not, would you mind commenting on your views there of? i also find it frustrating to not be able to find an answer to what big g really is, and why its so weak. thank you.

  10. It is simple folks if the electric universe was a real theory how do you explain electric fields at a rather large distance from effectively neutral charged particles or assemblies of particles. Gravity is the only force at large distances.

    It is absolute drivel. Bert

  11. Just a question (not mine): If nuclear fusion is happening on the sun as theorized it can only produce the lighter elements. Where do the heavy elements produced by the sun come from?

      1. Have there really been that many stars that already ‘died’ to make up for the quantities of heavy elements as observed (in the spectrum of our sun and other stars)?

        1. Absolutely. Remember, the heavier the star is, the faster it consumes its fuel and dies. So whilst a dwarf G star may last 10 billion years, an O, B, or A star may only last 10-100 million years.

  12. Have there really been that many stars that already ‘died’ to make up for the quantities of heavy elements as observed (in the spectrum of our sun and other stars)?

    Yes. The sun was formed about 4.6 billion years ago, and the Galaxy is much older than that.

  13. I admire Professor Koberlein’s patience in dealing with the EU folks here — I don’t think I could manage it for as long as he has.

    Here are two simple questions for EU proponents:

    1) What force do you think dominates planetary motions?
    2) What is the mass of the sun?

  14. Not really here to argue. I just want your opinion on what I have to say. However here is a question: There ha to be thing you agree with from other models like string theory and other things you disagree with like maybe worm holes? Make a list with a description so maybe I can learn something =).

    There is really no model out there for what I describ in my 1-4 numberd laws bellow. I speak for millions of others too that have compiled these basics with likely more thought than I. It just seems as the EU theory is closer than the Big Bang for myself. Its depressing to me I have no real banner to go behind.

    As Ghandi once said – “In reality, there are as many religions as there are individuals.”
    ___________________________________________________________________________________

    These are parameters for what model of the universe I need to have. So far not a single model of the universe matches my reasoning;

    1. The universe cannot have more than 3 dimensions. 3 dimensions takes all available room in all directions. Time doesn’t exist… rather only the present exists forever changing (Hitler wasn’t in the past. hes in the now just in a different state of matter like dirt). Furthermore If “spacetime” existed then so would traveling in time and would create infamous paradoxes (I believe to further disprove the 4th dimension of “spacetime”.

    2. There cannot be a point where everything just suddenly came into existence from an atomic size to what it is now. And there is no center of the universe. If the universe wasn’t expanding we wouldn’t need dark matter to hold galaxies together and dark energy to keep them moving away from each other.

    3. Because of #2 I think that if the universe is static (not getting smaller or bigger) it could be also infinite (which I am bias towards also). I imagine endless upon endless of star death/life cycles… without a point in time where it all started.

    4. You cannot just make up fundamentals that have no concrete base and use them as fundamentals for theories to be built on and theories to be built on them. I am sick and tired of hearing people get scientific awards for stuff that sounds like something from Harry Potter. Just last year some guy got an award for finding out that combining two black holes and then separating them creates a a warp connection between the two (they become the same atom in two different places. So touching one makes you touch the other, thus your in two places). I just cannot stand it, and this is why so many of us have jumped ship to the Electric Universe.

    5. Everything is explainable. A multiverse and a wizard casting magic have equal credibility. I know that not everything can be done in a lab in order to prove stuff but you cannot make everything out as unchallenged fact. When you make an observation and create a question followed by an answer you have a hypothesis. Until you can experiment over and over you cannot have a “theory”. Many of these theories will prove wrong yet end up having years of development on top of them causing us to spend billions of dollars chasing ghosts and hindering real human progress.

    1. Author

      If you want to know where I stand on various topics, just start reading my past posts. There are quite literally hundreds of them covering a wide range of topics. You can start with the sitemap page, which has them listed by category.

      Your questions could be a whole post in themselves, and might be at some point, but to address them very briefly:

      1. Why can’t there be more than three dimensions? You simply state outright that it must be so, and that time doesn’t exist, but you provide no evidence to support why that might be. We describe space and time in terms of general relativity because the theory works time and time again (no pun intended). We’ve measured time dilation effects, and the effects of space curvature, and even indirect evidence of gravitational waves. Here’s 16 posts explaining various aspects of relativity and how the data supports it.

      2. Despite the common perception that the big bang claims everything exploded from a point, that isn’t the case. Here’s 36 posts on cosmology, which talk about everything from cosmic inflation to the cosmic microwave background, and how we know (again from the evidence) that the early universe was hot and dense, and that the observable universe was once much smaller than it is today.

      3. You’re right that there is no “center” to the universe, but that doesn’t mean it’s static. Here’s a post showing how we know observationally that the universe is expanding. Here’s another showing how the “static” model really doesn’t match observation.

      4. There is a common misconception that things like dark matter are simply “made up” by scientists without a concrete foundation. That’s not how it works. Models are developed to account for physical experiments and observations. These models are tested against further experiments. If they keep working they become theories. If they fail they get discarded. And just because something sounds like it’s from Harry Potter doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Do you know for a couple hundred bucks you can buy a magical device that sends messages through the air, can connect you with friends all over the world, can detect particles from outer space and can provide you with a massive database of knowledge and entertainment? We call them cell phones.

      5. Just because something is explainable, that doesn’t mean it’s easy to understand. Quantum theory is one of the most rigorously tested scientific theories, and even the best scientists struggle to understand all of its nuances. Complicated and strange doesn’t mean it’s wrong, and simple doesn’t always make it right.

      If you take the time to read my blog you’ll find I’m pretty biased toward actual evidence. The EU models simply aren’t well supported by the evidence, which is why they aren’t widely accepted by the folks who actually study the universe.

  15. It seems to me that the author is trying to fight his corner without a full grasp on exactly what he is arguing against?.
    Many of the points made are indeed accurate to an extent but he is not tackling the fundamental principles on which the EU theory is built.

    It is understandable that the author and other attackers of EU theory are defending their viewpoint as their whole education and possibly career have been based mainstream ‘theories’ taught as fact.

    If the author was to look a little deeper and with an open mind he too would realise that some fundamental ‘truths’ are maybe not so true after all.

    1. Author

      It seems to me that the reader should actually read the article before accusing the author of closed-mindedness and bias to protect his career. Part of the problem with EU promoters is they continually make accusations about bias against astrophysicists whenever EU is criticized. This is actually a rampant problem within EU articles themselves. Most EU articles follow the formula: state something obvious, accuse astronomers of ignoring it, state something provably wrong, accuse astronomers of ignoring that as well. Wash, rinse, repeat. Seriously, if anyone would like to send me what they consider to be an accurate overview of EU, feel free. The catch is that if it can’t accuse scientists conspiracy to protect their jobs.

      1. You’re so smart, you even have names for all the fallacies. Could you please answer this one question? Where does magnetism in space come from?

          1. When you say “flows of plasma,” you reveal yourself of someone who thinks of plasma as a gas, instead of a unique form of nature. Plasmas obey the laws of electromagnetism, not gravity. I see you as uneducated in plasma physics and not worth listening to. And, by the way, “etc.” is not a scientist’s answer to a question.

          2. Author

            Ah, the internet, where you get to have random people call you an idiot. I actually know quite well what plasma is and isn’t. The textbook I’ve written actually contains a great deal on astrophysical plasmas. It always boggles me how EU fans keep perpetuating the idea that astrophysicists don’t understand plasmas. It’s like claiming plumbers don’t know sewage flows downhill.

          3. When you’ve dedicated a blog to calling people idiots and answer questions the lazy way by just saying “etc.,” or label something a fallacy without any examples to back up your statement, you provoke a bit of scorn. So, please explain how the flows of plasma create magnetic fields. Please be precise and thorough, professor. And yes, an Internet website brings in random people. Why have one if you don’t want that?

          4. Author

            Plasma physics is complex. If you honestly want to gain an understanding of how plasmas can create magnetic fields, just let me know your level of physics and mathematics background, and I’d be happy to provide some good references. I suspect you’re not interested in learning, though. From your tone it seems you just want to criticize everything I do.

            But perhaps I’m wrong, so I have to ask, what do you hope to achieve in this conversation? You’ve come into the comments calling me uneducated, criticizing my responses to you, saying my blog is devoted to calling people idiots, and demanding that I answer complex questions to your satisfaction. To what end?

          5. Brian,

            I understand you’re suspicious of my motivation. But what difference does my motivation make to a scientific argument? Anyone can send a link to an article. But being able to explain it, simply, to someone else means you really understand it. I’m a teacher and know that from experience.

            I am interested in learning. I’ve read Don Scott’s book, Thornhill’s blog, and watched presentations by that group. At least they respect my intelligence by being willing to explain things. Carefully. In detail. They ask questions I have never seen answered. One of them is the question of where magnetism in space comes from. Magnetism and electricity are interconnected on the Earth. I don’t know of a way to create a magnetic field on the Earth without electricity. Do you? Do you think it’s possible there is charge separation in space? If not, why not? I’ve educated myself to a degree on the behavior of plasmas. I can probably handle anything you want to throw at me, although I might need some time to digest it.

            It’s obvious to me you’re not uneducated. But I’ve read so many quotes of scientists in history dismissing theories that we now accept as true. Honestly, it makes me skeptical when someone is dismissive without giving detailed point-by-point rebuttals.

            And you have to admit there’s real emotional resistance to the idea of a solar system, or galaxy or even the universe acting like an ecosystem, where everything is dependent on everything else, as the EU theory leads me to wonder about. Ecosystems seem to exist everywhere on the Earth: in our guts, in our economy, in our climate. Why would the rest of the universe be so different? But the idea that we’re merely a small part of something is a direct challenge to our view of ourselves as the “smartest guys in the room.” It seems to be human nature to resist that concept.

            So my motivation is: the EU folks have set me thinking. I’m asking the standard model people to do the same. If you have simple answers to my questions – or even links – I’d love to read them and ponder them.

            In good faith,

            Sally

          6. Author

            I understand you’re suspicious of my motivation. But what difference does my motivation make to a scientific argument?

            It means a great deal actually. There’s a difference between a skeptic who wants to understand and a denier who just wants an argument. Topics such as evolution, climate change and the electric universe draw deniers to websites all the time. So when you come in questioning my intelligence and motivations, while demanding detailed answers to complex phenomena, that looks like a denier.

            Anyone can send a link to an article. But being able to explain it, simply, to someone else means you really understand it. I’m a teacher and know that from experience.

            I’m a professor, so I teach subjects at everything from introductory overviews for non-majors to graduate-level courses. Explaining something at an appropriate level is important, which is why I asked for your mathematics and physics background. Without that, I’m simply guessing at your level of understanding, and I’ll generally assume novice, since that’s the most common level.

            I am interested in learning. I’ve read Don Scott’s book, Thornhill’s blog, and watched presentations by that group. At least they respect my intelligence by being willing to explain things. Carefully. In detail.

            I would argue that they actually insult their reader’s intelligence. Much of their writings are filled with accusations about mainstream scientists, that we don’t understand plasma physics, or that we ignore evidence to protect our jobs. They also present things in a folksy “seems pretty clear to me” way that downplays any complexity to the subject or any opposing views.

            They ask questions I have never seen answered.

            They also tend to ignore responses to their claims. Here’s a link to a site that outlines in detail some of the major problems with the EU model. One of the big challenges for mainstream scientists is that the EU claims are wildly wrong that you have to go back to first principles to deconstruct it. Here are a few other posts I’ve done on the subject as well.

            One of them is the question of where magnetism in space comes from. Magnetism and electricity are interconnected on the Earth. I don’t know of a way to create a magnetic field on the Earth without electricity. Do you? Do you think it’s possible there is charge separation in space? If not, why not? I’ve educated myself to a degree on the behavior of plasmas. I can probably handle anything you want to throw at me, although I might need some time to digest it.

            In general magnetism can be produced by a flow of charge (current), or by a changing electric field that induces a magnetic field, or through the magnetic moments of elementary particles. What is not needed is widely separated charges to induce an electric current, which some EU proponents claim. What I’ll do is write a post on magnetic fields in space in the next week or so.

            It’s obvious to me you’re not uneducated. But I’ve read so many quotes of scientists in history dismissing theories that we now accept as true. Honestly, it makes me skeptical when someone is dismissive without giving detailed point-by-point rebuttals.

            Without knowing precisely what your background level is, it is impossible to provide a detailed rebuttal on a topic.

            So my motivation is: the EU folks have set me thinking. I’m asking the standard model people to do the same. If you have simple answers to my questions – or even links – I’d love to read them and ponder them.

            If you go through and read my blog, you’ll find over 750 posts on astronomy and astrophysics. One of the things I’ve very clear about is what the evidence actually tells us, and how we know our models are right and when they are wrong. If you are really interested in understanding how mainstream scientists view the cosmos, I think they’d be a good place to start.

          7. You use the term “denier” as in “Holocaust denier.” But if science is an ongoing exploration, testing and reasoning about how the world works, then “denier” seems like part of the fabric. Sydney Chapman was a “denier” that auroras were caused by charged particles ejected from the Sun – until a satellite proved him wrong. Then he embraced the idea and took it further.

            I’ll look at the links. Thank you.

            Are you familiar with the Safire Project, testing the electric sun hypothesis? You can find a pdf of the report from the first phase of their experiment here: https://community.jmp.com/docs/DOC-6676. This project in no way seems to be denying anything – just testing a conjecture. Can you find fault in it?

            I’m a novice in astrophysics, but I pore over the material, re-reading until I understand. I taught high school math.

          8. New one for you to respond to, if you want:

            https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/12/15/16823/

            Particularly:

            “This is the real source of the cognitive dyspepsia being experienced by the Rosetta mission team and it is a fundamental challenge for all physicists. The lesson to be learned is the real meaning of E=mc^2: MASS and ENERGY are PROPERTIES of MATTER. Mass is an energetic variable dependent on the presence of other matter and the electrical stress in the environment. Mass is not equivalent to the amount of matter. Just because both words begin with ‘m’ does not mean they can be substituted in the mass-energy equation. The calculated density of comet 67 P cannot tell us what the comet is made from. If it looks like rock, it’s safest to assume it is rock! It is not necessary for the low density to be due solely to high porosity of the interior of the comet. The electrical model even suggests hollowness as a possibility.” – Wal Thornhill

          9. Author

            To quote Thornhill: “If it looks like rock, it’s safest to assume it is rock!” which is exactly the problem I wrote about yesterday. The problem with Thornhill and others is they are willing to ignore theories with decades of experimental support to reach the conclusion that they are right, and thousands of trained experts are wrong. In the webpage you link to, Thornhill dismisses special relativity, general relativity, orbital dynamics, spectroscopy evidence and other data because “it looks like rock”. That isn’t remotely scientific. Again, if you are truly interested in learning about astronomy and astrophysics, start reading through my past posts. They focus on evidence, talk about pros and cons, and they don’t discard reality to fit a particular story.

          10. Your response to the Thornhill essay shows 1) you didn’t read it or 2) you’re disingenuous or 3) you’re self-deceived. I’m not sure which.

            “…they are willing to ignore theories with decades of experimental support to reach the conclusion that they are right.”

            They’re not ignoring them. They’re challenging them.

            If you’ve read Thornhill, e.g., http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-gravity-in-an-electric-universe/, you’d know he’s not challenging any ideas “because it looks like rock.” He’s challenging them because he thinks astronomers took a wrong turn in the early 1900s when they excluded electricity.

          11. Author

            So either I agree with Thornhill, or I’m 1) lazy 2) a liar 3) stupid. Wow, I don’t even know why I bother. The fact that you were a math teacher and you don’t have the slightest inkling of what constitutes scientific evidence makes me feel sorry for your students.

          12. are all of your blog topics this full of aggression, or just this one?

            …its like people on here are all just waiting to verbally attack and belittle one another.

  16. Hi, layman here. I’ve barely learned of this standard vs. EU polarization in the last hour. I mostly have little understanding of what most of you are arguing about. I thought (or perhaps rather “I think”) that electromagnetism and gravity are manifestations of the same thing.. but no need to comment on this unless you feel compelled to comment on the matter.

    I came to this page in search for more information regarding this “electric universe.” I didn’t even know it was a model, or that it is an unaccepted model (thus far), so pardon my ignorance in this entry. All I know is that I watched their presentation on Mars and was deeply compelled by the connections between some celestial event and the many stories told by our ancestors. I came away with a much deeper fascination for what could have transpired in the history of our solar system so as to have seared the memories and imaginations of our ancient architects in such a way that produced the running themes of symbolism and anthropomorphism common amongst them all. All scientific dissonance aside, I think many would agree that this potential information about ourselves is HUUUUGE.

    What is your perspective on their “Lightning-Scarred Planet” presentation of Mars?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRV1e5_tB6Y

    Could such a thing happen as proposed?

    1. Author

      It’s mostly rubbish. Part of the thing that makes videos like this so appealing is that it sets up a mystery as if there is no possible explanation for it. They then introduce a radical idea that seems obvious given the way they’ve presented it. It’s the same method used by lots of fringe models. It’s known as the fallacy of the excluded middle. That is, scientists must be wrong, therefore I’m right. I touched on the idea of this type of thing in an earlier post.

      1. “It’s mostly rubbish”, even though electric discharge experiments show that they are most certainly not rubbish. Infact, quite the opposite.

          1. “everything in space that looks remotely similar” It’s planet Mars not everything in space and it looks exactly the same not remotely similar. It’s only rubbish in your eyes because it proves the discharge theory correct.
            How did the scar on Mars come to be then? Must be that imaginary water that is in your comets hey?!!!
            You say the EU is a pseudo -science, at least they have testable theories unlike the standard model that makes up stuff like dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars and wormholes, non of which ever will be found or tested. The only pseudo -science here is the standard model I’m afraid, anyone with a logical brain can see this.

  17. “If you believe science is certain – well that’s just an error on your part.”

    – Richard P. Feynmann

  18. I enjoy reading your stuff, Brian.

    It is the mark of a good scientist to actively falsify any theory. But particularly well-substantiated theory. This method, as opposed to verification, is perhaps less hindered by bias.

  19. This is funny stuff! This is like NASA convincing people that they have magical rocket engines that do not require an atmosphere to thrust against when supposedly blasting off from the Moon; after bouncing around in a jeep on the Moon of course. Or those who turn the reality of Intra Species Natural Selection into faith-based Inter Species Evolution while calling such faith a “science”; even though Inter Species Evolution cannot be observed or repeated, thus failing the very basics of the scientific method. Or the even more laughable Holocaust Fables that require Holocaust denial laws throughout Europe (enforced by jail) to keep people from looking into that deception. Or the really laughable 9/11 deception that tells the tall tale of an airplane piercing a steel building and then completely demolishing the undamaged and much more massive steel structure below. Thanks for the laugh Brian, I am sure you make a good living memorizing and repeating this stuff.

      1. i just laughed so hard i teared up. this blog has officially become amazing! can jim be real? is that a real person? youre putting us on now right? :p

  20. Hi Brian, I just discovered your blog. I’ve been following EU for a while now. In particular, I think you could say I have a bit of an obsession with the sun, water and the roles they play to give rise to life.

    EU material covers a wide range of topics and while I agree some of it is far-fetched such as stars “giving birth” to planets, I think there are other ideas you are actually in agreement with. For instance, much of the EU’s criticism of the Rosetta mission is focused on whether or not comets contain significant amounts of ice. They propose the hydroxyl and water vapor measured from comets is produced by the solar wind interacting with the rocky comet nucleus. As you said yourself in a recent blog post: “So it turns out water can appear on a dry, airless rock. All you need is a bit of solar wind.” So maybe it is not all rubbish after all.

    And while I agree the idea of stars giving birth is far-fetched and lacks observational evidence, I consider dark matter far fetched for the same reasons. I see from past blog posts that you are a dark matter believer. So from where I sit, I am detecting a bit of a double standard in your criteria. Is it really far fetched to consider that dark matter may not exist, but rather electromagnetic forces are playing a role in galactic rotations? If there is a reason to rule out electromagnetism having an influence at galactic scale I’d like to learn more about that.

    I also have a hard time accepting the standard model of a gravity driven nuclear fusion sun. In this post, you consider neutrinos and continuous spectrum as evidence for this model. Only recently (by following EU topics) I’ve discovered the theories of Pierre-Marie Robitaille. It’s not clear if you allow links, but if you do Youtube search for “Robitaille: Sun on Trial” he puts forth an alternate model of a liquid metallic hydrogen sun, which I have found quite compelling. There is actually quite a bit of complexity you have glazed over in regards to the continuous spectrum. If I remember correctly, it involves photons bouncing around inside the sun on the scale of a 1000 years or so in order to produce the continuous spectrum that is observed. Just like dark matter, it starts to sound a bit far-fetched. Robitaille takes issue with this topic specifically (among many other topics) and questions the validity of Kirchhoff’s Law. Unlike the EU folks (Thornhill, Talbot, etc) Robitaille has accomplished some impressive feats in his career as a physicist, so he has a bit more credibility to his claims. He has many papers that can be found by doing a Google search for “pierre-marie robitaille vixra archive”. I see from early comments you consider vixra rubbish, but I hope you don’t delete this and give others a chance to go look and make up their own minds. Do you have any blog posts on the topic of this alternate condensed matter sun theory?

    I haven’t spent a lot of time investigating the topic of neutrinos, but from what I’ve read thus far it again seems like far-fetched dark-matter-esque theories are being invented involving unexplained mechanisms of electron neutrinos changing into muon and tau neutrinos en route to the detectors on earth. My initial gut reaction is that if the sun does contain a condensed matter form of hydrogen, it is possible that nuclear fusion is being driven by other mechanisms besides gravity which can perhaps explain the neutrino deficit without unexplained mechanisms. I’ll try to learn more about it, perhaps I’ll have more to say about it at a later time.

    1. Author

      First of all, calling me a dark matter “believer” implies that I have a faith-based approach to the subject, which is simply not true. Scientists are often accused of making science a “religion”, which is disingenuous at best. While I do think dark matter is the best model we have, I have noted other proposed models that disagree, and have also pointed out the weaknesses in dark matter that need to be addressed. It is not a double standard to apply all models (both the ones I agree with and disagree with) to observational and experimental tests.

      But to your points. The EU argument about cometary ice isn’t unique to EU. Arguments on the nature of comets exist within the mainstream astrophysical community, though since the 80s astronomers have not though comets are dirty snowballs. Many EU proponents continue to claim that mainstream astronomers cling to the dirty snowball model in contrast to the EU’s dusty charged rock model. This is a lie. The main problem with the EU model is that it makes wild claims clearly contradicted by the evidence. The fact that it might agree with some small details of mainstream astronomy does not substantiate its wild claims in any way. It is on the whole rubbish.

      The argument of electromagnetic induced galaxy rotation curves as an alternative to dark matter is also unfounded. While dark matter was first introduced to address rotation curves, it makes other predictions about things like galaxy clustering and the cosmic microwave background. These have since been confirmed by observation. Plasma cosmology, for example, made different predictions that have been contradicted by the evidence. Again, EU/plasma models don’t work.

      The fusion-based solar model is well-supported by the evidence, including the observation of neutrinos. The “solar neutrino mystery” is still invoked by EU supporters as a counter to gravity-induced fusion, but that’s been solved for quite some time. We know very clearly that neutrinos change flavor, because we have demonstrated this in the lab. We can create neutrino beams, detect their levels locally, then beam them through matter to measure the rate at which they change flavors. It’s experimental fact, not a “fudge” to fit a particular model.

      Robitaille’s work is beyond awful, and again completely contradicted by evidence. I haven’t written a post specifically on his work, but since it seems to be a rising “flavor of the week” for EU fans I’ll likely write something on it in the near future.

      1. Regarding Rosetta: You are making claims of lies being told. I think you might be significantly misrepresenting this issue. I don’t accuse anyone of adhering to a “dirty snowball” I said “much of the EU’s criticism of the Rosetta mission is focused on whether or not comets contain significant amounts of ice.” I’m aware that models changed in the 80s to put most of the ice beneath the surface (I like to call it the “dark ice” model). It isn’t a “claim” that the mainstream clings to this model, it is a verifiable fact. If you do a Google search for “rosetta mission ice” the first result is an ESA blog post titled “Philae settles in dust-covered ice” and describes a layer of “mechanically strong ice” (a convoluted way of saying “rocky layer”) underneath a thin layer of dust. Why was the Philae lander engineered with harpoons and screws designed for ice and no other way to tether itself to a rocky body? Why was ESA surprised when there was no ice to be seen on the comet surface? This is an expensive mission and dialog about what went wrong is entirely appropriate. Mistakes are the best opportunity to learn new things, but when mainstream science has a hard time admitting mistakes, this is a problem. EU predicted very little to no ice and proponents of their comet model (such as myself) were not surprised by the lack of ice at all. It was expected. So by your own standards of observations matching predictions, EU seems to have the leading model for comets. Can you elaborate on what you mean by “wild claims clearly contradicted by the evidence” with regards to the Rosetta mission? Also, if you can point me at some mainstream astronomers who made other predictions that match observations I would really like to know, because I’d like to start following their work.

        Regarding dark matter: Ok, forget about “beliefs”. So as to not appear disingenuous, allow me to rephrase: You support dark matter as the leading candidate to explain the failed predictions of a purely gravitational model for galactic spin. I have not explored all your past blog posts, but when you mention “models you do not agree with” are you referring to MOND vs dark matter? The blog post I read only considered those two models. Both are still gravitational models and do not consider electromagnetism playing any role. Since the vast majority of (non-dark) matter we do see is said to be ionized gas (aka, a form of plasma) it seems to me that it would be impossible for electromagnetism to *not* be having any effect on observed phenomena. In my original post I said I’d like to know what reasons (if any) there are to rule out electromagnetism? There is a perception that a disproportionate amount of resources are spent searching for dark matter with a lack of consideration for electromagnetism for reasons that are not apparent to me (and others I’m sure), so if you can help clarify the reasoning that would be helpful. You say dark matter has made predictions that match observations but from what I’ve seen it seems the opposite: the estimates of how much dark matter is in a galaxy is tuned to fit the observations that failed to match predictions.

        Regarding Robitaille: Wow, I find it surprisingly disrespectful to call his work “beyond awful” without explanation to back it up. He spent over 10 years directing research leading to the design and construction of the first Ultra High Field MRI scanner. I think this is a significant accomplishment and it is through this work that he made observations leading him to question Kirchhoff’s law, which has led to a new look at blackbody radiation and new explanations for how to produce the continuous spectrum we observe from the sun. It seems like he’s well qualified and knows more about this than most. I’d look forward to more on this later. If and when you write more about this, I’d be curious about what makes the current explanation for how the solar continuous spectrum is produced so much more convincing in your opinion.

        Regarding neutrinos: Thank you for the information about the experiments measuring the “flavor change”, I was not aware of it and it gives me something to go explore further. Like I said, I have not spent a lot of time investigating neutrinos, so I’ll learn more about it. Clearly if neutrinos can be created in a lab, then gravity driven fusion is not the only explanation for how they can are produced, so I intend to learn more about that process.

        1. Author

          Google “electric universe icy snowball” and you will find link after link where EU proponents claim mainstream astronomers still think comets are icy snowballs. It’s claimed over and over again. Then EU supporters note that “much to the surprise of mainstream scientists” they aren’t made mostly of ice. This is a lie. Claiming that comets contain ice, or that they have layers of ice is not the same as claiming they are mostly ice. The wild claims EU makes about comet P67 is that it has a very strong negative charge, and that electric discharges cause the emission of gas and dust due to the electrically charged Sun. While charge can build on astronomical bodies, it does not occur at levels claimed by EU, nor is it a primary cause of cometary tails and the like.

          Regarding the electromagnetic model of dark matter, I’ve talked about this before. Basically you can tweak values of charges within the galaxy to match the rotation curve, but the charged galaxy/star idea of EU then disagrees with galaxy formation, clustering on cosmic scales, the cosmic microwave background, all of which dark matter agrees with while also giving the correct rotation curve. But this raises another lie that EU supporters keep perpetuating, the idea that mainstream astronomers ignore electromagnetism, and ignore plasma. We don’t. Plasma and magnetic fields play important roles in astrophysics, they just can’t replace dark matter. We’ve measured the magnetic fields of the Milky Way, for example, and they are nowhere near strong enough to account for rotation curves. But whenever some new discovery on astrophysical plasma hits the news, EU proponents state that this is a “surprise” to mainstream astronomers and thus proves once again that EU is on the right track. It isn’t.

          Robitaille’s work on the CMB and metallic hydrogen sun is junk. This is completely independent of his work on MRIs. Unfortunately some people have it in their heads that since the guy understands engineered MRI devices, he must also understand astrophysics. This simply isn’t true. I know astrophysics very, very well. You wouldn’t want me to design an MRI.

  21. Good post Brian. You sure stir up a hornets nest when you challenge the beliefs of the “we’ll believe in anything as long as it’s not ‘mainstream'” crowd. You’re very patient.

  22. I am truly amazed by your patience and self control! You must be a good teacher. I’ve come up against these EU ‘proponents’ many times. I try to be polite and educational for as long as possible, but i’ve come to the conclusion the majority are just idiots.

  23. OK I’m starting to lean towards the EU model the more I look into it so please save me by answering 2 questions please

    Q1 what exactly is gravity

    Q2 are mass and matter the same

  24. Ok so it boils down to space time vs plasm. so the question would be how well insulated was gravity probe b to the effects of any potential electrical interference . would its insulation against electro magnetism cover the above ?

    Also my thoughts on comet 67p

    If we have a lander on the comet then by the eu hypothesis its should now be building up a charge and will start to discharge as it starts to travel away from the sun, therefore the lander itself should have a visible discharge at some point tbh this observation should put the whole thing to bed as we know for a fact that the lander is not made of ice.

    1. Author

      Actually, it doesn’t boil down to spacetime vs plasma. One of the common accusations of EU supporters is that mainstream astrophysics ignores plasma. We don’t. We talk about plasma all the time, and there are entire research groups focused on astrophysical plasma.

      This relates to your other comment about 67p. You’re stating the “EU hypothesis” claims charge should be building up on the comet. The same type of phenomena is studied by mainstream astrophysics. Finding charge or ionized plasma near a comet is not a unique prediction of EU, despite their claims to the contrary.

      Where EU fails is in its central predictions (the sun is electric, dark matter is a magnetic effect, etc.) Claiming electrical effects on cometary bodies (which are also recognized in mainstream astrophysics) doesn’t justify the wild claims of EU.

      To answer your other question, yes, gravity B was properly shielded.

      If you really want to understand astrophysics, you need to stop listening to what EU supporters say mainstream models predict, and look at what the models actually say. By that I mean the actual research articles, not the hyped press releases.

      1. “If you really want to understand astrophysics, you need to stop listening to what EU supporters say mainstream models predict, and look at what the models actually say.”

        I suggest you do a similar thing and stop giving false testament about what the EU models say. You seem to think science is as a game, where we keep score and cheating is an accepted way of gaining victory.

        1. Author

          Actually I’ve been pretty fair in representing EU models, particularly in focusing on the modern scientific claims of EU. I actually avoid discussing the hard-core woo connected with the model. Given what I’ve read by EU fans, I’ve been quite kind in my portrayal of it.

      2. Hi Brian. First, I would argue that “mainstream” by definition is what is generally presented to the public. This includes what we are taught in school, what is in the text books, etc. As soon as you tell people to go dig up individual research papers, I think that falls out of scope of mainstream. But anyway, I’ll take your suggestion anyway.

        I’m watching some saturday morning EU videos about modeling birkeland currents. In the video, Don Scott makes the claim that Herbig Haro objects are examples of birkeland currents with z-pinches. He shows HH111 as a specific example. So I tried doing a search for “Herbig Haro 111 knots” and found quite a few results that look like research papers that try to understand these objects. They talk about knots being “internal condensation”. I don’t see anything that seems to even consider plasma physics playing a role in the patterns observed in these jets. What do you think causes the knots?

        1. Author

          With that definition of “mainstream,” a good deal of it is also bunk, and I’ve done dozens of posts debunking many of the claims, particularly in the media. Particularly in the media it is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that “hype” sells. But the most accurate picture you’ll get is to go as close to the source as you can, and that means refereed research journals. Barring that, it means going to popularizations of that work by people you can trust to be accurate and free of hype. It’s part of what I strive for on my blog, and there are others out there as well.

          Herbig Haro objects are not Birkeland current pinches. Basically they are jets of material from young stars that collide with the interstellar medium, creating shock waves that heat and ionize the gas so that it glows. The exact mechanism that causes them isn’t entirely clear, but they aren’t pinched currents. In the literature you won’t often see direct mentions of “plasma” because we tend to use terms like fluid, ionized material, etc. which can be plasma, but also gas or dust depending on the situation. It really depends upon the context of the research paper.

          That probably doesn’t seem like a very strong counter to Scott’s claim, but this actually brings up another challenge of trying to weigh a fringe theory vs a dominant one, known as the “one way hash.” In cryptography, a one-way hash is an asymmetric technique, such as the fact that it is easy to multiply two prime numbers, but much more difficult to factor a number into two primes. You’ll see the same thing in pseudoscience, where it is easy for a pseudoscientific model to make a “reasonable” claim, but takes a great deal of effort for a scientist to break down just why the claim is wrong.

          If you go back to look at the video you watched, what you’ll likely see is the setup (what Birkland pinches are), examples from the lab (more pictures/graphs), and then an astronomical image that has the same kind of features. Basically, the argument is “it looks like a pinch, so it must be a pinch.” What you won’t see is a reference to actual research articles about the objects. You won’t see a presentation of evidence that clearly distinguishes the proposed model from counter models.

          So the discussion becomes “In this YouTube video someone made a claim without detailed reference (easy hash). Explain to me in detail why this isn’t valid (hard hash). Unless you actually dig into the research journals (which most people won’t do) you’re left with the one way hash.

          If you search for “plasma” on my blog you’ll find 45 posts on the topic, which goes into various misconceptions as well as what we do know about plasma astrophysics.

          1. Ok, I think you are drifting a little out of your element with the hash argument. I’m a software engineer and know all about hashes. Don’t get me started on rainbow tables and hash salts 🙂 Let’s consider something closer to home that is easier to discuss than Herbig Haro objects.

            Don Scott explains the mechanisms for the flow of electric current and how Lorentz transformations push positive ions into alternating “sheaths” moving in opposite directions. It makes logical sense to me,

            He then makes the case that the Earth’s aurora are an example of these alternating sheaths of ion flows. As the sheaths get “pinched” the charge density increases until they begin to discharge light. We can see this with our own eyes. There’s plenty of videos and images of the aurora (including from space) where you can clearly see the sheaths, Scott also claims the alternating ion flows have been measured and confirmed. Do you disagree with any of that?

            Later he claims planetary nebula M2-9 is another instance of these sheaths. Would you disagree that the observed sheaths of this object are different in nature than the earth’s auroras? To me it seems pretty clear that as this object is pinched in the middle, the charge density increases and therefore so does the brightness. That’s why on the outer fringes of this object, the glow just sort of slowly dissipates. I’m assuming you’ll say it’s mysterious jets that can’t be explained (one way hash argument). Ok, fine, but why is it not possible for this to be a plasma sheath phenomenon as Scott describes it?

          2. Author

            In Scott’s argument, M2-9 (also known as the Butterfly nebula) is a z-pinch. But such a pinch occurs when current (and the actual plasma) flows through the pinch. This is a pretty easy claim to check by looking at the Doppler shift of the light. If it is a pinch you should observe both lobes moving in the same direction (or in the case of a double layer you’d see inward/outward flow on both sides. We’ve looked at this, and it’s very clear the material is flowing away from the central star. That’s just one reason why Scott’s description is wrong.

            Another thing to keep in mind is that the image used in Scott’s talk (something like this) is specifically designed to pull out the faint features of the lobes. That’s where magnetic fields and currents would have the greatest effect, so it looks like a pinch. Here’s another image of the same object focusing on gas and dust. Here you can see material hot central region collides with dense pockets on either side, creating flows trailing away from the center.

            M2-9 isn’t remotely what Scott says it is. If Scott had submitted his idea to a research journal, the Doppler observations would be one of the things he’d need to address. He’d also need to address observations at different wavelengths that disagree with his idea. He hasn’t done that.

          3. (this is in response to your M2-9 post, which I could not reply to directly for some reason)

            You make a very compelling argument. However, as I attempted to learn more about your claims, I discovered you made a mistake. NGC 6302 and M2-9 are not the same object. According to http://www.constellation-guide.com/butterfly-nebula/ it says “The Butterfly Nebula (NGC 6302) is not to be confused with any of the several nebulae which are either similar or referred to by that name … … the planetary nebula M2-9, also known as Minkowski’s Butterfly, found in Ophiuchus …” So I am not yet convinced.

          4. Author

            You’re right, I should have been clear that the two are not the same object, but rather similar objects with the same basic physics.

            But to get to the heart of the discussion, please clearly explain how a flow of plasma current through M2-9 would produce emissions with a Doppler shift indicating that both sides emanate from the central star. Convince me.

          5. I hardly expect to convince you of anything. I think your mind is made up already 🙂 But, I wanted you to know, I have taken your advise and I’ve been reading the actual paper with the “mainstream” interpretation of what’s going on with M2-9: http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/119/3/1339/fulltext/

            You might be disappointed though. If anything, it’s made me believe even more that Scott’s model is a better fit to explain what’s going.

            Let me summarize the mainstream view. M2-9 consists of 2 extremely symmetrical lobes of dense plasma, emanating outwards at 100 km/s according to doppler measurements. The motions of these lobes are described as 2 “corkscrews” coming together in the middle, with a “twisting” rotation that is completed every 120yrs or so. There are knots that occur on these lobes, but they move laterally along the edge of the plasma sheaths, not radially (as would be expected if they were swept up in the 100 km/s flow of material). The mainstream explanation is a “jet-splash” model. It involves an invisible “collimated gas flow particle beam” with outflow an order of magnitude stronger: 1000 km/s. This theoretical beam is supposed to have a narrow component (jet), which produces the laterally moving knots on the plasma sheath wall, as well as a wide component (splash) that creates a “pressure” which is what is supposed to be producing the dense plasma sheath, essentially like gas inside of a balloon. Funny enough, the jets of Herbig Haro objects are invoked as justification for this theoretical jet beam. But the way I see it, it’s also supports Scott’s argument that the same fundamental phenomenon is driving both of these mysterious objects (HH111 and M2-9).

            I’m sorry, but the way I see it, if it’s fair game to come up with invisible theoretical beams modeled after the physics of hydrodynamics in space, then it’s perfectly fair game to take Scott’s explanation under serious consideration. To be honest, I think his seems a lot less outlandish than the mainstream. As for the 100 km/s doppler data: Maybe I’m misunderstanding things, but I believe Scott’s birkeland current model allows for layers of plasma sheaths and each layer can be moving in alternating directions, due to the physics of lorentz transformations. So the mainstream’s “invisible jet-splash particle beam” that is underneath the sheath could also just be layers of plasma, which seems a whole lot simpler. When theories start getting too complicated and rely on numerous miracles to occur at the same time, that’s usually a red flag that something is wrong.

            So, coming back to the bigger EU picture: Yes, EU theories do draw a lot of kooky people out of the woodwork. But I think that’s largely due to how they use the internet as a medium to spread their ideas. The internet is full of the strangest people and then you get all the “OMG Planet X Nibiru is coming to awaken a new level of cosmic consciousness” type of people attracted to it, just because it challenges mainstream opinion, but that doesn’t mean the challenges to mainstream that EU makes are any less valid.

          6. Author

            I’m not disappointed because it is the type of conclusion I see from most EU supporters. You asked for evidence that Scott’s model is wrong. Scott very clearly claims M2-9 is a z-pinch. Since z-pinches occur when plasma flows through the pinch. Again this is what Scott claims. You’ve admitted that Doppler data clearly indicate that the material is moving away from the central region, not through it. So Scott’s assertion is wrong.

            Rather than acknowledging that point, you decide to hand-wave ideas to explain the data away. That’s not how science works. But you’re not looking at the evidence to support a conclusion. You have a conclusion and are simply trying to shoehorn the evidence into it. Basically you’re arguing that because a mainstream attempt to explain the data doesn’t satisfy you, an alternative model that is contradicted by the evidence is probably right.

            This is why scientists don’t take EU seriously, and this is why “kooks” flock to EU models. It’s much easier to play at science than it is to actually do science.

            The paper you cite is actually looking at the complex phenomena within the lobes. That is, it’s looking at details within a broader model. Whether or not the details are correct doesn’t change the fact that the central claim of Scott’s model is wrong.

          7. Brian, I am looking at the evidence and I’ve been mulling it over for days. I’ve had trouble trying to sleep to try to make sense of it.

            For instance, let’s take the 120yr corkscrew rotation described by Doyle et. al. According to the model, it’s driven by a theoretical jet-splash collimated ionized particle beam. And according to the model, the beam is the result of an orbital pattern, because it’s too long for stellar rotation, so he theorizes an binary system involving a Mira class star with another object in orbit around it at a distance of 30 AU. This is starting to involve a lot of theoretical miracles to come together. As he even says himself: “It is not fully clear, even for symbiotic stars, if at such separations the interaction between the two stars can be very effective at forming highly collimated fluid beams.”

            So why is that more plausible, than Scott’s model, in which spiral motions of plasma sheaths is a simple inherit property and does not require such elaborate fictions to be dreamed up?

            Also, you seem to be the one hand-waving away science. As I tried to point out, Scott’s model is not in contradiction with the doppler measurements. His model allows for plasma sheaths to move in alternating directions. If you look up on youtube “Modeling Birkeland Currents, Part 2” and jump to 16:20 and watch until about 19:00 he explains the physics that allow for this. So, the doppler data does not invalidate his model.

          8. Author

            The Doppler results most definitely prove Scott’s model wrong. If there was motion in both directions, you’d see an overlap of both redshift and blueshift on both sides, which would be seen as a splitting of the emission lines (or a broadening if the resolution was lower). This is absolutely not what is observed. The Doppler evidence is clear that material is moving outward (for whatever reason). The paper you cited is very clear on this.

            The paper you cite is from 2000. There have been earlier studies on Doppler results, but if we take 2000 as a date when there is clear evidence of outward flow, then we see something interesting. In a 2014 video (at about 34:30) he states he is convinced B2-9 is a z-pinch Birkeland current, and that “all the current is going one way on the outer sheath. Whether it goes in the opposite direction in the center, I don’t know.” More than a decade after Doppler evidence proves it isn’t going one way, Scott is still claiming that it does.

            But it’s clear that Scott isn’t interested in observational data when it comes to astronomy. At the end of the video he states one of the primary rules of the electric universe is “let your eyes tell you.” In other words, if it looks like a z-pinch, it must be a z-pinch, and let no evidence to the contrary sway your opinion. This is actually a primary flaw of EU supporters, the idea that it’s obvious from a picture or video, and that the reliance on actual data is simply scientist obfuscating the truth. The EU folks play at science, but they aren’t actually doing science.

          9. Ok, I see what you are saying now. I’ve attempted to contact the thunderbolts folks to see if I can contact Scott and ask him about it. I am very curious about it, we’ll see what happens.

          10. Author

            You should also tell him that if he does have an explanation for how Doppler gives the appearance of outward flow, while the material flows through the center, he should submit the work to a peer-reviewed, mainstream astrophysics journal. If his claim can’t stand up to peer review, then it shouldn’t be taken seriously. This is crucial, because his claim stands in opposition to the widely supported standard model. If he just makes further claims without publishing the work legitimately, then he’s playing at science, not doing actual science.

      3. OK thanks for you time explaining I can see your passionate about you work.

        So spacetime is a fact

        Now the point I was trying to make regards the lander on 67p is that the probe itself should release a discharge similar to the comet. I could even go further to say that rosseta itself should now act like a comet and release a discharge on its exit from the sun.

        This observation should either prove or disprove the EU hypothesis regarding comets in 10 months time (my lay man opinion).

        again I would like to thank you for taking your time out to try and educate ppl the best you can.

        can you recommend an astro physics book which I can read with my 7 yr old son at bed time please – he only likes is Dad to read him factual books!

        1. Author

          If you can track it down, National Geographic’s Our Universe, by Roy A. Gallant is outstanding. The 1994 version is a bit outdated, but the text is clear, doesn’t talk down to kids, and the illustrations are amazing. Two books by H. A. Rey (of Curious George fame) are The Stars, and Find the Constellations. Both give a good introduction to naked-eye astronomy. Unfortunately these kinds of books go out of print pretty quickly.

          1. Thank you for the recommendations – just ordered all three! Thanks again for all your advice.

        2. I’ve read every comment on this thread but I guess I missed something. Can you point me to where spacetime is proven as a fact? I’m not an eu proponent at all but I was interested in what Bill Gaede argued about the 3 dimensions. I am not convinced by Bill but I also don’t have enough physics knowledge under my belt to refute it. So proof for spacetime would be great. thanks.
          And Prof. Koberlein, you have effectively persuaded me away from the eu theory. THANK YOU!!!

  25. Brian, great job… not only handling the explanation of daunting topics (to folks like me, who are trying to gain an understanding of many different subjects), but to handling all the woo-meisters who seem convinced that in every aspect of their lives, there are people ‘hiding the real truth’.
    As a no longer practicing journalist who once had a syndicated health radio program, I can tell you how deeply the med/health woo is believed by people who are willing to put more time into learning the ‘alternative’ or ‘underground’ theories and positions rather than the standing research.
    It simply makes them feel great to do battle (in their minds) with some sort of injustice or conspiracy. Quixotic, and useless.
    I have this running disagreement with a friend who is so smart and capable in many areas, but insists that a proven fraud (Dr. Hulda Clark) was in reality an ‘ahead of her time’ genius, who was persecuted for her beliefs about curing cancers with woo machines and treatments. No, she was persecuted because she took money from desperate people and never cured or improved a single case!
    At least in discussing (arguing) astrophysics, no one gets physically hurt !

  26. Almost no thought went into this article. The author (no offense) is obviously not familiar with the electric model and, as pointed out earlier, makes many very bad assumptions. This was a very poorly written and terribly-researched article. In the future, stick to what you know.

    1. Author

      “makes many very bad assumptions…” “poorly written and terribly-researched…” Yeah, that sounds like the electric model…

  27. Brian, thank you for fighting the good fight, but realize that you are trying to battle faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof) with science (the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment). It’s a difficult battle, because faith exists in the absence of proof, and therefore does not yield to evidence. Also keep in mind that science has progressed to the point that only people with many years of training are capable of understanding the evidence. I don’t mean that as an insult to non-scientists, because scientists have sacrificed the opportunity to acquire other kinds of knowledge in order to master their trade. To most people, however, taking the word of a scientist is as much a leap of faith as believing in the proponents of anti-science; so which faith to embrace? You presented your case well in your original posting, and that will appeal to those with open minds. Don’t take the bait of the EU provocateurs; they aren’t going to change their minds anyway.

  28. The reason scientists don’t get any further than they do is because ALL SIDES are intractable. Chances are- you are both right and you are both wrong in different areas of Cosmology. Learn to WORK TOGETHER. Learn to ask each other questions trying to UNDERSTAND AND VALIDATE each others points of view rather than trying to knock each other down. Then you will be able to put more of the pieces of the puzzle together. There’s electricity out there and there’s gravity out there. Put them together and you’ll find the answer!

    1. Author

      The misconception that astronomers ignore electrical effects really needs to die. Astronomers look at both gravitational and electrical effects. They study the behavior of plasma in detail. Electric universe proponents add nothing to the conversation, largely because they consistently misrepresent the evidence. The EU folks are perfectly free to publish their “results” in astrophysics journals, but haven’t. That’s typically because their work wouldn’t pass peer review…

  29. Brian, I also would take exception to the reasoning you provided on our Sun’s spectrum “proving” it is not an electric phenomenon. What you failed to take into account is the fact that an electrically-powered sun as proposed (i.e., note I say “proposed” because the EU people are merely asking the question rather than making a bold statement in stone) would not produce light solely by this process. Since I already showed you how the Farnsworth Fusor works, there would be a multitude of processes taking place in an electric sun model to give off light. The EU people propose a multi-modal system of light generation. The mainstream model only looks at one process.

    It is also important to realize that there is no “set in stone” model set forth by the EU community. For instance, I accept relativity as proven fact. I also accept black holes as a possibility, and am especially interested in the recent discoveries of electric dynamo effects surrounding black holes. I accept redshift as an indicator of distance. What you are referring to as the “accepted” EU theory are largely taken from the thunderbolts.info site, which contains many ideas that I readily admit are half-baked, but nonetheless, a website that allows a person to think about these various ideas. Think of Thunderbolts more like a contrarian website which forces a person to think rather than be a parrot, and you will understand their intent.

    I would also urge you to take a look at more scientifically-reserved sites such as the one by Anthony Peratt (website is http://plasmauniverse.info/).

    1. Author

      No, the Farnsworth fusor produces a spectrum that widely disagrees with the solar spectrum, so that can’t save EU. The discrete energy levels would definitely be seen in a plasma induced electric Sun. The reason so many EU supporters argue against this point is that it is so clearly ridiculous. The more subtle counterargument is Robitaille’s “Kirchoff’s blackbody radiation law is wrong,” but that also doesn’t work.

      The argument that there’s no “set in stone” model of EU is also wrong. Individuals can disagree on particular points, but it is clear that Thunderbolts is not a fringe or contrarian view simply trying to encourage new thinking. They are the top EU website, the top on YouTube, hold major conferences, and are the dominant view of EU fans. They present their views as absolute fact, and claim that established astrophysics is provably wrong. Those claims have been made in this comment thread as well.

      If you indeed think relativity is fact, black holes are possible, and redshift is an indicator of distance then you already disagree with most of the core tenets of EU. To then claim that your “moderate” stance as an argument in favor of EU is ridiculous.

  30. “The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun. We have not only observed solar neutrinos, we have imaged the Sun by its neutrinos.”

    I hate to throw words back in your face, but I wanted to make sure I provided you the direct quote from you proof to establish the fact that you are not only misquoting the Thunderbolts.info website and their associates, but you are essentially publishing a bald-faced lie when you state that “…The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.”

    The EU model, as you call it, explores the possibiity of an electrically-powered sun, and nuclear fusion taking place near the surface of the sun. At no time did anyone associated with Thunderbolts.info ever say that neutrinos are not emitted during these processes. At no time did anyone associated with Thunderbolts.info ever say that nuclear fusion was not taking place.

    If you are going to provide a critique of a particular stance, I would encourage you to thoroughly review your material prior to publishing it on the web for all to see. Otherwise, It makes you look foolish.

    1. Author

      If you actually read Findlay’s book (the pdf of which I linked to in the post) you will find it specifically argues against stellar fusion. This is clear at various points throughout the book. On page 102, for example, Findlay argues that since dwarf stars emit x-rays, but are clearly too cool for fusion to occur, the fusion model must be wrong.

      This particular book has been endorsed by Thornhill as a good introduction to EU, so it is fair to hold it up as an example. If no fusion occurs in the Sun, the Sun must therefore produce no neutrinos.

      The only thing that makes me look foolish is continuing to engage with EU folks who don’t understand the ridiculous predictions of their model.

  31. Brian, the longer you attempt to discredit the EU community the more ridiculous you appear, to anyone of sane mind. So please, continue.

    1. I am of sane mind, Trevor, and I find Brian’s rebuttals of “EU theory” robust. What I do find ridiculous is the apparent complete lack of any quantitative, independently verifiable theory published – anywhere – by any “EU theorist”. And “the EU community”, in its continued support of such non-science, is acting more like a religious cult than rational thinkers, IMO.

  32. Here is another example of your disrespectful, ugly, and arrogant attitude:

    “…and this is why “kooks” flock to EU models”.

    Really? “Kooks”? Do you really believe you are the “holder of the wisdom”, and everyone who differs with your opinion is a “kook”?

    I am through talking with you. It is obvious you believe you are better than everyone else. You might want to know that Anthony Peratt has forgotten more than you will learn in a lifetime.

  33. Thanks for taking on this thankless job 🙂 Discussing with the EU crowd is nervewracking at the least, as from my experiences at BABB/BAUT/CosmoQuest and JREF/InternationalSkeptics. Some claims that you have to work with are “not even wrong”. Keep up the good fight.

  34. And what of Plasma Cosmology? The Electric Universe model has many proponents, many with their own models and variations, but plasma cosmology seems to be taken seriously by many scientists.
    As for Solar neutrinos, there is another model that uses vacuum spark produced gamma rays and gamma-gamma physics to create matter and neutrinos. Such sparks have also been considered with a model for the production of pulsar radio emissions.

    1. Author

      It depends on what’s meant by plasma cosmology. On the one hand there are mainstream research groups that focus on astrophysical plasmas, and their work is part of traditional models. In the middle is a kind of “plasma dominates over gravity” view that is outside the mainstream a bit, but is trying to do valid work. On the other end are folks that are basically in the electric universe camp and are more interested in plasma than evidence. In mainstream astrophysics no one denies the important role plasma plays in phenomena, it’s just that we know stars aren’t electrically powered and black holes really do power quasars.

      1. Does this latest research change anything in your models?

        Magnetic field discovery gives clues to galaxy-formation processes

        “Spiral arms can hardly be formed by gravitational forces alone,” Beck said. “This new IC 342 image indicates that magnetic fields also play an important role in forming spiral arms.”

        If you have a magnetic field, you must have electric currents.

        1. Why not spend some time, Solon, on reading the relevant papers? I think you’ll find that the Plasma Cosmology ones are quite inconsistent with those by Beck (for example). Not to mention that the PC papers are very much inconsistent with the vastly greater observational datasets available today, but not in 1986.

  35. Thank you for engaging these idiots and being a beacon of truth for the rational. The EU theory is like a bad virus that prays on the weak minded. I think its caught on because of how simple the explanations are and the fact that a lot of people don’t trust what they don’t understand.

    I am principally against censorship, but heretic theorys like EU model are dangerous to real progress.

    1. “foolish and absurd” and “formally heretical.”
      The Qualifiers, February 23, 1616

  36. Wow. Even from their debate tactics EU crowd is clearly the vaccine sceptics of the Physics community. A semi-ignorant crowd with wild theories are more dangerous than completely ignorant crowds.

  37. Hi Brian,

    Have you come across “The Primer Fields” by David LaPoint? He is more of an inventor than a scientist. But his theory about photon being concentration of energy with gigantic magnetic field and explaining its particle like as well as wave like behavior seems fascinating. You can find this in his 3rd video on YouTube. I’d appreciate very much if you can comment on it. I stumbled upon your website while searching for any comment from a physicist on his work.

  38. We live in strange times when people who “don’t” believe in time travel, time dilation, singularities where universal laws of physics break down, and multiple universe are considered kooks.

    1. Author

      Time dilation is very real, and is used in things like GPS. As for time travel, singularities and multiple universes, despite what the mainstream media might present most scientists would consider such ideas on the fringe at best. Strange how EU supporters claim to be so widely read in this field and yet really have no idea what modern astrophysics models actually say.

  39. Regardless of where EU stands, the Standard Theory has made very tall claims with zero evidence. Until and unless we have time dilation in a lab, dark matter in a bottle, and dark energy in a motor, we should stay skeptical. Also, isn’t the double-slit experiment explained via time travel ?

    1. Author

      By that same argument, until we put the moon in a bottle, we should stay skeptical of its existence. Standard cosmology doesn’t make tall claims without evidence, and the double-slit is not explained via time travel. This is what I’m talking about when I say you have no understanding of modern astrophysics.

    2. Time dilation in the lab was first shown, what, nearly 100 years’ ago! It’s something high school kids now do, in some Science classes. Maybe you should spend more time learning physics?

        1. Author

          There are lots of images taken above the atmosphere. The cameras used are designed for vacuum use, but they work basically the same way. What’s your point?

          1. “There are lots of images taken above the atmosphere.”

            Do you have an example of such images? NASA or ESA or Goddard could not find me an image of the Sun taken in ‘clear’ space, the folks at NPS in Monterrey told me a Neutral Density filter would be required, reducing all wavelengths equally, thus giving a true colour view.

            “What’s your point?”

            I’d like to know what colour the Sun is if viewed from space. I’m told it would be white, I’d like some experimental proof of that, not just opinion.

          2. Author

            There are lots of images taken in “clear” space, such as the images from SOHO: https://briankoberlein.com/2015/02/16/dancing-sun/ These are not simple photographic images, since a simple camera isn’t very accurate when it comes to collecting data. Any camera image you take will have some level of white balance that may be more or less true to the “real” colors. But we can do better than just take a picture. We can measure the spectrum of the Sun at sea level, and above the atmosphere. Here’s a comparison of the intensity of light both above the atmosphere and at sea level. What you find is that there are regions of the spectrum where our atmosphere absorbs much of the light. Above the atmosphere the Sun would appear much brighter, but the wavelength at which it’s brightest is about the same in both cases. So basically it would appear white.

            https://briankoberlein.com/wp-content/uploads/spectrum_bolometric.gif

          3. “Above the atmosphere the Sun would appear much brighter, but the wavelength at which it’s brightest is about the same in both cases. So basically it would appear white.”

            But wouldn’t a white Sun be considered a hot, young star, and not a G2 yellow, trending to main sequence orange?
            And I’d still like to see a real photo of the Sun, and not a highly processed image from a very complex instrument like SOHO, and the “visible” image from SOHO is orange, not white?
            http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.jpg

          4. Author

            I’ll ask again. What’s your point?

            G2 stars like the Sun are white. The Sun can appear yellow in the sky because some of the blue spectrum is scattered by the atmosphere. At high elevations the Sun appears more white.

            The SOHO image isn’t trying to create a “true color” image. It is processed to look orange because that’s what many folks expect.

            You keep asking for a “real photo”, so it seems you’re making a false distinction about different kinds of cameras. The type of digital camera you use at home has CCDs with a filter over them so that about a third of the pixels detect red, with the other thirds green and blue. Your typical camera then processes the image to create a reasonable approximation of the type of colors we see. Even if you take “raw” photos with such a camera it still only approximates true colors. We don’t send these kinds of cameras into space. Instead we send cameras where we can put different color filters in front of the entire CCD, so that all the pixels gather data. We’re more interested in data than “true color”. Both of these types of cameras use CCDs, both use filters, and both can be used to create approximations to “true color”.

            So yes, you HAVE seen photos of the Sun taken from space with a real camera. If you think the images are over processed, you can download the raw data from NASA and process images to your heart’s content.

          5. “G2 stars like the Sun are white. The Sun can appear yellow in the sky because some of the blue spectrum is scattered by the atmosphere. At high elevations the Sun appears more white.”

            “The SOHO image isn’t trying to create a “true color” image. It is processed to look orange because that’s what many folks expect.”

            For the 1/8000 sec time expenditure required, I’d still like to see an image of the Sun from an EVA, suing the same camera settings and filter as the shot from Earth used. Comparative analysis might be interesting.

  40. Brian, I’m a fan of your patience and your zeal to bring the ignorant to the straight and narrow, but I have to disagree: standard theory’s claims are not backed by evidence, they are backed by equations. It’s not the same thing. That’s why Hawking could blithely change his opinion of the very nature of black holes after forty years without batting an eye. I mean, kudos to him for accepting his error, but how could something so fundamental be revoked so easily. There are no black holes. Last year when everyone was expecting a great show as the G2 cloud was slowly sucked by the great big black hole, I knew nothing would happen. And it didn’t.

    1. Author

      Arguing that “equations” is different from “evidence” shows a deep misconception about what actually constitutes scientific evidence. All evidence requires a certain mathematical precision, otherwise it’s reduced to “it looks like a duck, so it must be a duck.” This is something many pseudoscientific proponents (including EU supporters) often fail to understand.

      Hawking’s claims about black holes were not about whether they exist (they most certainly do), but rather about a specific theoretical aspect of black holes known as the firewall paradox. Hawking’s claim was also not without controversy.

      Regarding the G2 cloud, at no point did any astronomer make a claim that the disruption of G2 was a test of the existence of black holes. It’s close approach was a way to see whether G2 was compact or diffuse, and if diffuse could possibly be torn apart by tidal forces.

      If you’re going to be critical of astrophysics, you at least need to know what the scientific results actually are.

  41. Brian, thanks for the clarifications. I’ll try and come back with more criticism, ha ha. I know we EU guys seem set in stone, but, honestly, professor, it seems that mainstream physicists plug a lot of gaps with gobbledegook to make up for limitations in their theories.

    1. Author

      Ah, the age old accusation that we just make things up. I’ll make you a deal. In all of my posts, find a mainstream concept where I claim it’s real (not hypothetical, not speculative) without explaining the evidence supporting it and providing at least one refereed journal article upon which the evidence is based. If there’s a concept I’ve overlooked, I’ll write a new post specifically citing the published evidence for it. If you find something I haven’t supported, and can’t find evidence to support, I will publicly renounce the concept as without evidence in a new post.

      However, if you can’t find a claim where I’ve filled the gap with gobbledegook, you must share 100 of my posts on the social media platform of your choice.

  42. Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing. ~ Terence McKenna

    For all of your confidence in the Biggest of all Bangs and the standard model, it all rests on a completely unexplained MIRACLE.
    Actually, two miracles: the supposed compression of the entire universe into a singularity (gee, why did that happen?) and then, contrary to everything we claim to understand about black holes and singularities, all of a sudden the singularity supposedly did the opposite of what it is supposed to do and EXPLODED with unimaginable force for absolutely no reason known to man.
    Wow, that’s quite a story.

    And we believe this why, precisely?
    Because some very, very far away objects appear to be red?
    Because of some static x-ray background “noise” which remains unexplained?

    Such faith might just be yet a third miracle.
    Hard to understand why such otherwise intelligent and leaned people believe with such fervor and faith that they refuse to even question such a story.

    1. Author

      Actually, that’s not how science works. We don’t have to assume anything. We don’t actually start with “In the Beginning..” but rather simply start with what we observe around us, and work backwards from there. This leads very clearly to an early dense period of the universe about 13.8 billion years ago, which we call the big bang.

      Hard to understand why such otherwise intelligent people think that science is a religion.

    2. My guess is that you do not know any astronomers … Because if you did, you’d realize just how inaccurate (wrong) your characterization is (quite apart from how badly you understand science). Rather, it seems you are projecting your (religious?) beliefs re the EU onto others; if the EU is religion, then so must cosmology be.

      I know it’s tough, but why don’t you take the trouble to actually read some relevant papers? You’ll find an enormous amount of very sharp questioning going on, far more and more intense than EU fans subject the EU to.

    3. “….. Biggest of all Bangs and the standard model, it all rests on a completely unexplained miracle….”
      The Big Bang Theory is a theory on the evolution of the Universe not its origins.
      The Big Bang doesn’t apply to a Universe that was small enough to be quantum mechanical in nature.

      “…static X-ray background noise”?
      Perhaps you mean microwave background.

      “…..very far away appear to be red”.
      Why red? Distant objects can be red shifted to blue, if they emit short wave radiation in their stationary frame of reference. Take a look at the Hubble Deep field which reveals distant blue coloured galaxies.

      The examples serve to illustrate you should get yourself a working knowledge of mainstream science instead of embarking on an ill informed commentary.

  43. Please stop, Brian! For your sake! I don’t know how you can keep going!

    I loved your article, and thought I’d find some thoughtful discussion in the comments. And I did! Until I got to this EU stuff. I had no idea this stuff existed until now, and I think it’s insane. I chuckled at the comments, I appreciated your continually reasoned, well-written, well-documented responses. After nearly an hour of reading what felt like an endless onslaught of stupidity, I looked at my scroll bar: I was only halfway down the page.

    This isn’t a discussion, or even an argument. It’s just trolling. They just want attention.

  44. I have always been interested in General Relativity, black holes, and other parts of the Standard Solar Model. I never questioned it, and til this day, I find it to be very interesting. However, I also find Plasma Physics, along with EU theory, just as interesting and would imagine both sides would research the other, simply out of their own general interest.
    Unfortunately, this is not what I have seen. Rather, I sit and watch the Standard theorists militantly ridiculing the EU theorists, and/or attempting to debunk EU without providing evidence against their claims.

    Anyway, just pointing out that the defenders of the Standard model (debunkers) haven’t convinced me that there is no merit to the EU theory, and the more it is referred to as “insane,” etc., the more harm you are doing to preserving the Standard theory.
    If you call these ideas “insane,” you end up losing the very audience you are trying to preserve, because, although most of us are believers in the Standard theory, we find EU interesting… you are basically calling us “insane” for finding it interesting.
    Just saying, EU theory is interesting, may not be correct, but seems like the status quo is more threatened by EU theory than they are interested in exploring EU theory.

    No need to reply. Just making an observation.

    1. Neutraldude, you write, “[I] would imagine both sides would research the other”, and you go on to say you have not seen this happening. Personally, I find this truly astonishing! For example, plasma physics has been a central part of astrophysics for many decades now, as any graduate student can attest. May I ask, how did you come to such an erroneous conclusion?

      You also refer to “EU theory”‘ and “EU theorists”. I’m quite interested in this, but up till now, I’ve not come across any such theory that is quantitative and independently verifiable. This is also astonishing to me: EU theory is built on plasma physics, so how come no EU theorist has ever published anything quantitative and independently verifiable? I’m also surprised that you apparently haven’t come across any robust debunking of EU theory; there are thousands of such, on hundreds of different websites!

  45. Michael Shermer, who writes the Skeptic column in Scientific American, was invited to speak at a recent EU conference. A report on that is in the October edition.

    There’s a thread on his article in the main EU hangout (easy enough to find, no need for a URL); perhaps the most interesting comment is this: “I would be very interested to see if actual data from spacecraft journeys really does corroborate Newtonian or Einsteinian ideas about Gravity”. Why is this an interesting comment? Because, a) it’s easy enough to find thousands of reliable sources which clearly show that it does, and b) apparently no EU fan, much less any “electric theorist”, has ever attempted to such an analysis themselves!! Which is really, really strange, because a vast amount of high quality data, needed to do such an analysis, is easily found, and is free.

    To me, this sort of attitude makes it clear that the EU has nothing to do with science.

  46. Thanks man. I have really enjoyed reading your blog especially about EU model, so called “alternative science”, if it is science at all but religion.

    My level: lay reader. I know bit and pieces of particle physics, some of Einstein´s work. In major topics without high level of math i can “reason” myself to a point where i have a clue whats going on, but that´s all to it.

    With EU model it just didn´t seem right. Mainly because their arguments base on electromagnetism which I know little. I couldn´t argue against it without understanding it. At first, but then I found out they were against gravity etc strong interaction etc. with all these crackpot claims even I could handle well. So this has been very lightening experience through an odd way, like disaproving something out you learn how things actually work. I love to learn new every day.

    btw. It seems that most of these EU fans don´t understand even basic physics. But that´s just my impression

  47. I forgot to say that my science enthusiasm is due to the fact that I´m crazy about neutron stars! So if you can link me ANY information about them, that would be great. Seems that neutron stars are not that hot subject or they haven´t been studied so closely, or I´m just stupid and cannot find more information.

  48. Whether one believes in the EU theory, or in the standard models which we are spoon fed by the mainstream, the Universe is electric.

    We can all observe that, just by looking at the images from space. Even die hard defenders of the mainstream theories such as Brian here do not deny that plasma, and magnetic fields exist in space, carrying charged particles along. Funding is happening in certain areas pertaining to what the “electric universe” theories say, he claims, in his attempt to show us how unbiased mainstream science is. But I rather believe these research projects only come about in these certain areas because the evidence has become undeniable. Isn’t it so?

    Birkland was effectively denied only up until we had instruments in space to measure the currents coming in from, and going to, the Sun, which he first proposed. Till then he was actively debunked by the scientists of GR persuasion.

    And even though it was 30 or 40 years now, since he was confirmed by data, some still deny Birkland.
    And electricity in space in still rarely spoken of, in mainstream peer reviewed papers and science digests for the public, as if it isn’t even there, or is of no consequence.

    The instruments are shouting “electricity”, to us. Fluxes and sheets of charged particles are detected everywhere. Incoming and outgoing electrons and ions are detected at all the heavenly bodies, and are now accepted. But most scientists still do not hear it. Some are even busy shouting “EU theory is pseudo-science, not supported by data”.

    Meanwhile, I see open-minded scientists are trying ideas. Maybe all the electricity we see in the Universe can help with some of the long standing problems with the current non-electric theories? And maybe we didn’t even have to make up things like Black Holes, Neutron Stars, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, if electricity does many of those things which we observe in the Universe, which GR couldn’t really explain?

    Questions which I believe are worth looking into.
    `Paul

    1. Paul, you seem to have made an error of logic, and seem rather ignorant of contemporary science. For example, there are thousands of open minded scientists who work full time on “electricity in space”; they are called plasma astrophysicists. They reject the published ideas of the leading EU figures (such as Thornhill, Scott, and Talbott), because those ideas are either too vague to be tested, or because there’s no evidence consistent with them (and vast amounts of evidence inconsistent with them).

      But you don’t have to rely on false history; if you are truly interested I studying “electricity in space” no one is stopping you. Further, available to you, for free, is TB, maybe even PB, of high quality data from an enormous range of astronomical instruments, surveys, missions, etc (none of which Birkeland had). And your laptop is a more powerful computer than supercomputers of just a decade ago (Birkeland didn’t even have a computer), and access to very powerful, free software, apps, etc. Why not do some independent research? Do you think Birkeland would have spent his time writing comments on Internet blogs, and turned his back on the cornucopia of free data?

      Finally, re “EU theory”: as far as I know there is no such thing! So it can’t be pseudoscience, and it can’t be supported by data (or not supported) … Because it does not exist.

  49. Thank you, Jean.

    Thank you for spotting an error of logic.
    But I think you presumed I mistake EU theory for other ideas proposed by “leading EU figures”.

    EU theory merely states that the Universe is powered by electricity.
    From Galaxy formation to what lights up the stars, is all caused by electricity.

    Extra ideas that individuals might have, are surplus to the basic premise of EU theory, imo, and I’m not buying into every published idea either.

    Meanwhile, keep on not denying electricity in space, you budding EU theorist. 🙂
    `Paul

    1. Thanks for the clarification Paul; I had not realized that you use “theory” to mean “wild speculation, what you argue about over a beer in a pub”, not “theory” as in Theory of General Relativity, or Big Bang Theory. Birkeland would have been very dismissive of this sort of sloppy language, wouldn’t you say?

      In my earlier reply I left out a large group of open minded scientists who study “electricity in space”, those who work with data from plasma science instruments on space probes. There are also thousands of them, hanging out in places like the lab named after Alfven, in Sweden.

      To the extent that it has any meaning at all, “EU theory”, as you describe it, it is indeed pseudoscience, not supported by data. But hey, let’s not be closed minded, let’s see a model of the Sun, based on EU theory, which is consistent with the observed neutrino output, the Sun’s spectrum, its power output (in electromagnetic radiation), and the relative lack of variability in such output over thousands/millions of years. Are you up to such a challenge Paul?

  50. Thank you again, Jean.

    I’m not here to argue about semantics.
    There are clear differences in the fundamentals of EU and GR theory.

    I agree with you that EU theory is not yet a fully developed theory, as GR is. And that there is speculation.
    As you say, scientists are only now starting to look into the electricity in space. And this is because of the data, isn’t it? EU theory has been around quite a while, even since before GR, but the likes of Tesla, Alfven, Birkland, and Arp etc were systematically ignored, until the data started coming in, in the space age.

    That’s the way I see it.

    In the electric Sun model, the readings that we get are precisely what we should expect from an electric Sun.
    A tufting and arcing surface. A corona. An accelerating wind. A plasma sphere.
    “Magnetic highways” (NASA’s term for electric currents).

    The data isn’t what they expected, from their nuclear fusion model. They are having a lot of difficulty explaining the data, by the current model. In case you hadn’t noticed.

    How does the supposed high core temperature get past the relatively cool surface, and heat the corona?
    Why a corona at all?
    Why does the Soar wind accelerate away, against the Sun’s gravity?

    And so much more.
    I know you know about these things, if you’re well read.

    Yet you postulate things like neutrino count, the spectrum, and power output, which EU theory can’t and doesn’t predict yet. The electrical nature of the Sun has not long been confirmed, and you already want neutrino counts?

    Seriously, Electric Universe theory is just beginning.
    Not everyone has cottoned on yet.
    `Paul

  51. Sorry Paul, but I think you’re still posting bad history, terrible science, and logical fallacies.

    For example, your comment about Tesla … Arp seems to be a total mishmash (Arp and EU? Alfven ignored? Tesla ‘unignored” in the space age?). If your scholarship is so poor, why should anyone pay attention to what you write?

    Then there’s the “only now starting to look into electricity in space”, yet “until … In the space age”! Goodness, what about the tens of thousands of space science and plasma astrophysics papers published, in peer-reviewed journals in the last 60 or so years? But you’re right in one aspect: no one looked at data from plasma science instruments on space probes until the space age.

    OK, drop the neutrino flux; are you up to the challenge of an EU-based model of the Sun which is consistent with its observed spectrum, power output (in electromagnetic radiation), and relative lack of variability in such power output over the last few thousand/million years or so?

    And no, I hadn’t noticed any difficulty with data on the Sun’s corona, an accelerating solar wind, magnetic highways, etc being inconsistent with models of the Sun and the IPM (interplanetary medium). You might like to read some of Brian’s posts on these topics, and follow up with reading the relevant published papers. If there’s a topic he hasn’t covered, he may be happy to follow up. What I *have* noticed is thoroughly irresponsible commentary by self proclaimed EU proponents, replete with cherry picking, misquotes, gross ignorance, logical fallacies, and even what I can only characterize as outright lies.

    “Precisely what we should expect from an electric Sun” Really? How can anyone – objectively, independently – derive what to expect from such a model? I mean, no such model has been published, has it? So expectations would be completely subjective, and wildly speculative, wouldn’t they? Certainly there’s nothing objective to work with, is there?

  52. Thank you, Jean.

    Nobody has to pay attention to anything anybody writes.

    Arp’s work is dismissed.
    To Alfven, the Big Bang theory was a myth.
    Tesla was completely dismissive of Einstein’s theories.

    So yes, these were ignored. Are still ignored, even today.
    But their work is being cherry-picked.

    Funny how you called EU theory a pseudoscience, and now you say, what about the 10s of thousands of published papers about it, in the last 60 years or so.

    You may be happy with explanations given for how a nuclear powered Sun transfers it’s energy past a cool surface, causes a corona, accelerates its wind, and makes magnetic highways, but I never was.

    No, I can’t give neutrino counts, explain spectra, or energy outputs. But as far I am read, our Sun is a variable Star. And there is another conundrum for them. How to explain the measured variations by the nuclear model. They’re working on it.

    The Voyager and IBEX missions have now discovered electric currents coming in, and going out of, the heliosphere, traveling along “magnetic highways”.
    Paul

    1. Paul, I’m going to split my reply into shorter pieces, so it’s easier to continue the discussion.

      “The Voyager and IBEX missions have now discovered …”

      First, how do you know that? Have you, for example, downloaded the relevant data, done your own analysis, and published the results? Have you read an objective, EU-model based analysis of that data, one that is published (and can be independently verified and validated)?

      “As far as I am read, our Sun is a variable Star … They’re working on it”

      In which papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, did you read that, may I ask? If not in such papers, how did you – independently, objectively – verify the accuracy of your source(s)?

      And please, if all you’ve got is your subjective, unsubstantiatable intuition, be honest enough to say so.

    2. Second reply.

      “Funny how you called EU theory a pseudoscience …”

      Thanks for this, I can see how a confusion may arise.

      The ~60 years of published papers are on, broadly speaking, “electricity in space”, not “EU theory”.

      The key difference? Per you, “EU theory merely states the universe is powered by electricity.” I think few of the tens of thousands of papers published by open-minded plasma astrophysicists and space scientists are based on the idea that “the universe is powered by electricity”, or that it is “electricity that lights up the stars”. Except in the sense that their conclusions are completely inconsistent with those EU ideas.

      “You may be happy with … But I never was”

      Fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But may I ask, what published papers on these topics did you read? What independent analysis of the relevant data did you do?

      “No, I can’t give neutrino counts, explain spectra, or energy outputs”

      OK, can you point to published papers, whose key content and conclusions are objective and independently verifiable, and which are based on EU models, that do? If not, then the EU ideas look sterile, wouldn’t you say? I mean, EU proponents have been working on this idea for many decades (and many working pretty much full time), haven’t they? All that effort, all those millions of hours, and no result?

    3. Third, and final, reply.

      “Arp’s work is dismissed”

      It isn’t, but let’s assume that it is, for now. Can you walk me through the logic please? How do you get from Arp’s work being dismissed to “the universe is powered by electricity”?

      “To Alfven, the Big Bang theory was a myth”

      Really? What is your source for this, may I ask? Assume, for now, that it is so. Can you walk me through the logic please? How do you get from what Alfven believed to “the universe is powered by electricity”?

      “Tesla was …”: same key question, how do you get from Tesla’s alleged dismissive attitude re GR etc to “the universe is powered by electricity”?

      “So yes, … But their work is being cherry-picked”

      This really has me scratching my head!

      Apart from whether or not any of these folk were, and still are, ignored (I think you’ll find the relevant historical and contemporary facts rather different than your crude characterization), so what? If they work at being scientists for more than a decade or so, I think you’ll find every scientist gets some things wrong. Having been shown to be wrong, that particular piece of their work quickly fades from visibility. The rest of their work will likely be cited, sometimes for decades to come. That is not “cherry-picking”; it is a completely normal part of science.

      Besides, it’s not the person who counts, it’s their published work. That work stands or falls on its own two feet, so to speak.

      But I feel I’m missing something key about what you write, since you’ve repeated and expanded on it a couple of times. Would you be so kind as to explain, in some detail, what relevance this “ignoring” and “cherry-picking” has?

  53. Thank you, Jean.

    Not sure why you are asking me all these things, if you’re so disinterested in my points of view, and wish to no longer respond. But since you asked.

    Arp worked on red shift, and proved it isn’t a reliable indicator of speed and distance from us. This goes against the Big Bang theory, so this part of his work is still pretty much ignored today. Science happily adopted his catalogs of images, but his theories aren’t accepted, but they do line up well with EU concepts.

    That Alfven spoke against the Big Bang theory, was my logic for saying that. He proposed an alternative theory, and his work is now foundational to all plasma cosmologies and EU theory.

    Tesla was highly critical of Einstein’s relativity, and also understood the Universe was powered by EM.
    And yes, science has happily adopted many useful things from Tesla, while ignoring his warnings against relativity. That’s cherry picking, in my eyes.

    Crude characterization? If you say. I’m just trying to answer your questions in a comment box. You can go research, if you want to check anything I said.

    Every scientist gets some things wrong, that’s why some of their works fade from visibility? Bias is more more effective, in causing some of their works to fade away.

    You ask me to explain in detail (after having pre-warned me, you’re not going to respond). We are in a conversation about testing the electric universe theory, and you want me to speak about the relevance of ignoring and cherry-picking?

    I didn’t ignore GR, but when they start speaking about infinite densities in zero volume, and something coming from nothing for no particular reason, and now, black holes from which not even light can escape spewing out massive jets of matter, they lose me. Volume is a property of matter, so how do you fit even one gram of it into no volume? And then end up with less massive infinite masses, and more massive infinite masses, even super massive infinite masses. And if we question this sort of talk, we’re told it is because we don’t understand. So all conventional science really ever tells the majority of us is that we’re too dumb to understand the Universe.

    Or, we could just believe all they say, and then we can say we do understand. Because all the main science is settled. Science is just in the process of tidying up the last few loose ends, in it’s theories, isn’t it? Like good Catholics, who believe only their priests have the true knowledge.

    EU theory proposes a very different alternative to gravity only theory, and for me, it fits what my eyes see much better than what the Relativists say. Holes in space and Universes Big Banging from nothing are not provable. And I believe we should reserve judgment on the unproven, rather than make it the foundation for all future science.
    `Paul

    1. Author

      Arp did catalog galaxies and proposed that redshift was not an indicator of distance. His catalog was fine, but his redshift model was found to be wrong. Arp’s idea doesn’t agree with observation. Alfven won the Nobel prize for magnetohydrodyanmics (MHD), but his ideas on the big bang failed to agree with observations.

      When Arp’s redshift model and Alfven’s cosmological model were proposed, they were within the realm of possibility. We simply didn’t have the observational data to confirm or disprove them. Now we do, and we’ve had that data for decades. They haven’t been discarded because astrophysicists don’t like them. We didn’t cherry pick some ideas while ignoring others. What we did was look at the real observational evidence, in detail. Their models failed. The fact that EU supporters continue to ignore this simple fact is why it is considered pseudoscience.

      You say you haven’t ignored GR, but quite frankly, you don’t even understand GR. Claiming that GR requires something from nothing or infinite densities in zero volume shows a deep misunderstanding of the theory. If you really want to learn, you can, but you’d have to move beyond the folksy simplicity of EU and its common misconceptions.

      1. “Their models failed. The fact that EU supporters continue to ignore this simple fact is why it is considered pseudoscience.”

        While that certainly seems true, I think there’s another, much more compelling, reason for the pseudoscience label: essentially no EU proponent has done any actual scientific work on “EU theory”.

        For the decades the leading figures have been marketing this idea, and for the millions they’ve spent on propaganda over that time, ~no results from any scientific analyses, theory development, modeling, etc have been published.

        No EU proponent seems to act like a scientist (one might consider Peratt an exception, but for the strong disclaimer of any association with the EU on his website).

      2. Thank you, Brian.

        It was Arp’s red shift observations, that led him into trouble with the establishment. And they are still a conundrum for the Big Bang theory today, for the doubt they put on red shift always only being a Doppler effect. You guys aren’t being honest about the controversy still raging around this. Also, Arp’s theory that pulsars are ejections from Galaxies isn’t disproved yet, to some.

        Why did Halton get stripped of his telescope time, and lose his job, if his theories were not disproved until decades later? His theories were dismissed much sooner than you say.

        Astrophysicists still don’t like the EU theory today. They still discard interpretations of observations when the interpretations are electrical. What you say didn’t happen, I see is still happening. Scientists are still cherry picking. All observations need to made to fit the current the current paradigm. If they believe in the Big Bang theory, then of course all theories that go against it are disproved, because the Big Bang is truth, for them.

        I admitted I never understood GR. (Probably much like EU theory makes no sense to you.) I could learn it, but that requires me to take too much on faith, like the believers in that theory do. One simply has to accept the statements from the already believers in those theories, that the science is settled, and GR will live for ever (after a few minor tweaks).

        For example, it isn’t me that says the whole Universe sprang out of nothing, but the Big Bang theory says this. And it isn’t me that says infinite mass in zero volume, but the likes of Stephen Hawking, and astrophysicist’s text books. So telling me, that me saying these things shows a lack of understanding, is showing me your ingenuity. Because you do believe in things such a Big Bangs (something from nothing), and Black Holes (singularities with infinite mass).

        And, then I would be pretending to myself, like they do. Because modern astrophysicists don’t really understand their own theories. If they did, new observations wouldn’t surprise them all the time, as they so often confess they do. And they wouldn’t be declaring things like, this new observation turns all our theories upside down (while never doing that). Remember when NASA first discovered space weather? Or when Voyagers 1 and 2 crossed the inter-stellar boundary?

        I try to devour theories with an open mind. I believed EU theory because it is understandable, and it fits the observations, in my opinion. Plenty of scientists are questioning the current paradigm, and proposing alternatives. Only among the EU theorists, I found reasonable and understandable explanations.

        And NASA continues to make announcements that support it.
        And that’s my test for the Electric Universe theory.
        `Paul

        1. Paul, I don’t think you appreciate just how, um, poorly informed and biased what you just wrote seems. To any astronomer. I’m pretty sure I know the answers, but I’ll ask anyway: how many of Arp’s published papers have you read? How many did you understand?

          What is your opinion of the statistical techniques he used? Do you think that used in the paper he wrote with Fulton is different? Better?

          What accounts of Arp’s professional career have you read, other than his own?

          Telescope time is not free, and there’s always far more proposals for time than time; decisions have to be made. On the merits of the proposals. On what basis do you think telescope time should be allocated? Why, given Arp’s poor record re analysis, should he have been given time when there were far better proposals?

          If EU proponents are so invested in Arp being right re “discordant redshifts”, how come none of them has ever tried to independently validate his ideas, using freely available, high quality data Arp himself never had? (This is, by the way, a theme in my questions you have yet to address, may I ask why?)

          Did you actually read what Brian wrote? Arp’s redshift observations are not a conundrum for anything or anybody; it’s his analyses of those observations that have been conclusively shown to be wrong (so there’s no conundrum).

          “Redshift always only being a Doppler effect”. Paul, if you want to write critiques of astrophysics, please take the time and trouble to at least try to understand the basics. The Hubble distance-redshift relationship is understood to be a GR effect, not a Doppler effect; while they appear to be the same, they are very different … A fact Arp and Alfven knew very well.

          “And it isn’t me … But the likes of … And astrophysicist’s textbooks”. Sorry Paul, but I’m going to call you on this … You are either deluded, of telling a lie. But hey, I’m happy to be shown to be wrong! Please provide a reference, a graduate level astrophysics textbook, with page numbers, with such a blatantly wrong statement.

          “Astrophysicists still don’t like the EU theory today.” Perhaps that’s because it doesn’t actually exist? Because there are no published papers setting out what this actually is? After at least three decades of work by “electrical theorists”, why is there still no such publication?

          1. I apologize to you, Jean,

            if I don’t sound right to your ears. I’m trying to convey the notions in everyday language, which anybody can understand.

            So many questions about Arp. EU theory doesn’t rest or fall on Arp, or any other individual. Dismissing one individual, or part of his work, doesn’t discount a theory, for me.

            But discounting a theory can make a person discount individuals, or parts of work from many individuals.

            I think you’re trying to ensnare me. If you can get me to speak beyond my scope of knowledge, my tongue may slip. And then you shall have me, and your proof for your biased opinion. I’ll avoid that snare.

            ~
            Not Doppler, but GR effect?
            GR is a theory. The only effect it has is on how men think.
            Red shift is observed.
            Based upon the observations and measurements of red shifted light, men have theorized all sorts of things, including a Big Bang.
            For every theory men have theorized, other men have pointed out discrepancies.

            The sheer weight of debate on red shift that is out there, indicates to me that there is still much contention.

            ~
            “I’m going to call you on this.”
            You got me. It’s infinite density, not infinite mass. My bad, and thank you. (That does clear up for me, how Black Holes can have different masses.)

            Hawking, The Theory of Everything, The Origin and Fate of the Universe.
            “according to general relativity, there must be a singularity of infinite density, within the black hole”

            ~

            If EU theory doesn’t exist, then what are you contending against?

            ~
            The reason there are no publications, is that you refuse to see them. There are plenty. I stumbled upon EU theory about a year ago, and I’m still finding plenty to read. (And yes, there is some crackpot stuff. Everyone is a crackpot, before they are accepted.)

            Regards
            Paul

          2. I appreciate the intent, Paul (“I’m trying to convey the notions in everyday language, which anybody can understand”), but I think you are failing to communicate clearly. Especially considering that this site is owned by a professor of astronomy; I think you can safely assume that most readers have a reasonable grasp of basic physics (for example).

            “Dismissing one individual”: I think I explicitly said that it is the models, conclusions, analyses, etc which are the cornerstone of science, not the individual. But I’m glad to read this, even if it seems in conflict with what you wrote earlier (re Tesla, Alfven, etc).

            “I think you’re trying to ensnare me. If you can get me to speak beyond my scope of knowledge, my tongue may slip” So that we are both crystal clear on this, I am not trying to ensnare you! It is your own choice re what you speak about; if you think you may go beyond your knowledge, may I suggest a simple remedy? Always be prepared to cite primary sources. If you don’t have any, say so. If you are asked for such sources, provide them. This is what Alfven, Arp, Birkeland … would do; honor them and their scholarship by trying to emulate them.

            “The sheer weight of debate on red shift that is out there, indicates to me that there is still much contention” This might be a good example, for you to apply my suggested remedy: how did you determine that there is such a “sheer weight of debate”? Specifically, what is that “debate” in the last decade? For avoidance of doubt, I see no such debate; there are very few papers on ‘discordant redshifts’ in the last decade.

            “You got me” Thanks for acknowledging your error. However, you (deliberately?) avoided answering my request! Here it is again: “Please provide a reference, a graduate level astrophysics textbook, with page numbers, with such a blatantly wrong statement.” But part of this is due to an ambiguity in my request; I was referring primarily to “it isn’t me that says the whole Universe sprang out of nothing, but the Big Bang theory says this”.

            “If EU theory doesn’t exist, then what are you contending against?” The non-science of what EU proponents write, such as what you write, here.

            “The reason there are no publications, is that you refuse to see them.” I’m tempted to call you on this. My statement was “Because there are no published papers setting out what this actually is?” However, again there seems to be a communication gap: to you “theory” is no more than “wildly speculative ideas, having no necessary relation to science” (right?), but what I meant was “a scientific theory”.

            “There are plenty.” You are right, there are hundreds of publications on “EU theory” as in “wildly speculative ideas, having no necessary relation to science”; however, there seem to be none which set out, in a manner consistent with science, what it actually is.

            You didn’t answer many of my questions, perhaps because you can’t? Anyway, I’m keen to get your response to one, so I’ll repeat it: “If EU proponents are so invested in Arp being right re “discordant redshifts”, how come none of them has ever tried to independently validate his ideas, using freely available, high quality data Arp himself never had?”

            Oh, and one thing I’m now clear on, “gravity only theory”. Per what’s written in the forum you recommended (thanks again for that), it seems to refer to an outrageous strawman, a blatantly dishonest characterization of contemporary astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology. Given what you’ve written here, in the last few days, I’m somewhat surprised to see you repeating this dishonesty, and not actively seeking to point out, in that forum, just how awful this is.

            As you know perfectly well, nuclear physics is a central part of things like how stars shine (in contemporary astrophysics), and a deep understanding of plasmas is essential for explanations of the spectra of stars, nebulae, etc. Further, the role of hydrogen – its ionization, formation of a neutral gas, and re-ionization – in LCDM cosmological models is central … the CMB would be a complete mystery without it (to give just one example). And these are just a few of hundreds of examples I could mention.

    2. Paul, I am interested in what you have to say, and am particularly keen to learn what objective, independently verifiable material you have (or can point me to), that is behind your various assertions. Sorry if I gave your a wrong impression (by the way, I think you meant “uninterested”, not “disinterested”).

      Re Arp: you, Paul, have access today to far, far more data, on redshifts etc, than Arp ever did. And that data is free, and freely available. If you think Arp’s “theory” (he never called it that, as far as I know) has merit, why not download the data, and repeat Arp’s analyses yourself? Surely this has occurred to other proponents EU theory, and surely they have done such analyses, right?

      Re Alfven: is the theory he proposed EU theory? If not, why not say so? If so, please provide some primary sources, so I can see for myself. Also, I asked you for a source for “to Alfven, the BBT was a myth”; do you have one?

      “While ignoring his warnings against relativity. That’s cherry picking, in my eyes”

      Thanks for this. May I ask, how did you come to conclude that Tesla’s warnings have merit?

      “You can go research, if you want to check anything I said”

      First, you are the one promoting “EU theory”, I am just trying to understand what you write. Second, many of the things you write about I have indeed researched, as part of my (former) role as a staff writer for an online astronomy site, for example. What I found is inconsistent with what you have asserted, but I’m always happy to be shown to be wrong. Third, if you cannot provide objective, independently verifiable backing for the key parts of what you write, aren’t you, indirectly, dissing Birkeland, Alfven, Arp, et al? I mean, they never shied away from such, did they?

      (More later)

    3. (Continued) “We are in a conversation … And you want me to speak about the relevance of ignoring and cherry picking?”

      Yes. I’m quite keen to understand what it means to you, in detail. For example, it seems to me, so far, that much of what you have written is cherry picking, but I certainly don’t want to jump to any conclusions without first understanding.

      As Brian has noted, you seem to be extremely ignorant of GR, especially its well-known limits. For example, GR and quantum theory are fundamentally, profoundly mutually incompatible. The physical regime in which this incompatibility becomes manifest is way, way, way beyond anything we can test in any Earth-bound lab, for at least a century. However, it is manifest in the hot, dense state that you get if you compress the observable universe enormously. In such a regime, GR and quantum theory are useless; no one can describe how such a state would evolve.

      “Gravity only theory”.

      What is this, may I ask? It cannot possibly describe contemporary astrophysics, for example, and certainly not astronomy! The Sun, for example, is visible only because it emits electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Ditto the other stars, galaxies, etc. No one could possibly explain the Sun’s spectrum, for example, with a “gravity only theory”!!

      So I clearly do not understand what you mean; could you explain please?

    4. Paul, many times I’ve asked you for references to primary sources for the assertions you’ve made here.

      I think it only fair that I provide some that I have found.

      “NGC 3628: Ejection Activity Associated with Quasars”, by Arp et al (2002); arXiv link: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0206411 This paper contains details of Arp’s “theory” (to use your term); it seems to me it has nothing to do with “the universe is powered by electricity”.

      “Evidence against non-cosmological redshifts of QSOs in SDSS data”, by Tang and Zhang (2008): http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.2641 One of the many papers examining Arp’s main claim, and finding it is incompatible with the data. Clearly, Arp was not “ignored”.

      Alfven wrote quite a few papers on his cosmological “theory”; unfortunately all of them seem to be behind a paywall, which is strange considering how old some of them are. However, I did find “On the cosmology of Alfvén and Klein”, by Hunter (1967): http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967MNRAS.137..271H While it is true that in this cosmology “theory” plasmas play a key role, I couldn’t see anything in it which points to “the universe is *powered* by electricity”. In any case, this “theory” is clearly incompatible with a wide range of astronomical data.

      I could find no paper on the Voyager and IBEX data, consistent with your characterization (“The Voyager and IBEX missions have now discovered electric currents coming in, and going out of, the heliosphere, traveling along “magnetic highways””). On the other hand, it seems to be a claim made by many EU proponents, none of whom seem to point to any primary source. Perhaps this is not cherry-picking, but a deliberate falsehood? I’d be delighted to be shown to be wrong.

      “Evolution of the plasma universe. II – The formation of systems of galaxies”, by Peratt (1986): http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4316625 While this too is behind a paywall, I was able to find a copy elsewhere. On its face, this seems to fit your “EU theory merely states that the Universe is powered by electricity. From Galaxy formation … is all caused by electricity” characterization, it is clearly inconsistent with the totality of relevant astronomical data. Further, Peratt uses the Hubble relationship (between redshift and distance) as a key part of his analysis; clearly, he did not accept Arp’s “theory”.

      This last reference is particularly interesting … it is just shy of three *decades* old; the code Peratt uses is now public domain; no one seems to have developed this further (Peratt wrote several more paper on this, but none includes any new data or analyses); and Peratt seems to have picked a large number of cherries.

      But to me the most interesting thing is this: per the EU’s own propaganda, there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of fans. And some “electrical theorists” (strange term, that, but it’s what is used in the propaganda) seem to have been working on “EU theory” for over 30 years. Yet there seems to be essentially no published material, containing objective, independently verifiable analyses, based on this “theory”!

      Why is this?

      My quick estimate is that a person with a good high school degree that includes high marks for science could get to the point where they could take Peratt’s code and develop it further, to test EU theory, in a matter of only a year or so. Part-time. For someone with a university degree in physics, I figure it’d take only a few weeks, if that.

      Alfven, Arp, Birkeland, Einstein, Maxwell, perhaps even Tesla would surely have done this, or similar, work, and made it a high priority if there were firmly convinced that the universe is powered by electricity. How come none of the thousands (millions?) of EU fans have ever done that?

      (I have my own opinion, but I’ll hold off until you’ve had a chance to consider this Paul)

  54. Phew, go Jean.

    I’ll start with a comment you made in your reply to Brian.
    “No EU proponent has done any actual scientific work on EU theory”

    Tesla was a proponent of EU theory.
    Arp was a proponent of EU theories.
    Birkland, Alfven, Perrat, Langmuir, Juergans… I’m not actually good at remembering names, but there are plenty of them, and these are just a few that stand out for me.

    Also, in a previous post, you admit there are 10s of thousands of scientists now working in the field of EU theory. So your statement contradicts an earlier statement.

    I think maybe you see people like me, mere laymen, as being the sole proponents of EU theory, but this isn’t true. We look to the scientists that worked in the field.

    Also, basic electric and magnetic theory is founded on the works of Voltaire, Faraday, Maxwell, Ampere, and others. These names, and their works, are held in high esteem by both relativists and EU proponents. Their work discovered the basic principles of electricity, and therefore also underpin EU theory.

    “but for the strong disclaimer of any association with the EU on his website”
    Your final comment to Brian shows us, if one disclaimer any association with EU theory, then they may be consider a scientist, and their EU notions may be accepted by mainstream. And do you accept Perrat’s plasma cosmology theories because of his disclaimer?

    But his disclaimer declares no association with Wal Thornhill’s holoscience website, by the way.
    Not with no association with EU theory.

    Plasma cosmology is EU theory.

    ~~

    Again, Arp and red shift. See also my comment to Brian.
    Yes, I know there is far more data nowadays. In fact, they have found even more quasars with different red shifts to the galaxy they are connected to. Isn’t it?
    Arp definitely wasn’t ignored. He was vigorously debunked. Still is today.

    Not just EU theorists question red shift. You speak as if nobody is questioning red shift and BB theory, except for the EU theorists.

    Meanwhile, EU theorists look at the controversy, and are speculating. Most of them admit it. I haven’t heard anyone claim they have the last word on it, except for relativists, who speak as if they’re unaware that there is any controversy around the theory.

    ~~

    Alfven’s name was raised for his comments against the Big Bang theory. His principals underpin EU theory. His principals are accepted by mainstream too, couldn’t be denied, but not the ramifications of them for cosmology. Because there is still great resistance to EU theory.

    And can’t you Google? How did you research to arrive at your current beliefs?

    Every time you guys say something which is new to my ears, I google it, to know if I’m being offered bull or not. Don’t you do this? Does it help your understanding, to say to others, to source that, and to prove this, when they say something new to you?

    And, if I did do your research for you, would you believe in EU theory then?
    I don’t think so.

    If you want sources for EU theory, there is a resources section at the Thunderbolts forum. And the people over there are super friendly, and ready to answer questions.

    ~~

    I do need to apologize to you, I missed a couple of your posts, so when I read “final reply”, I thought you were finished discussing with me. I now realize I read that out of context, and that you meant the final reply of the three you just posted. I do sincerely apologize.

    ~~~

    One cannot compress the observable Universe enormously.
    But if one could condense all matter so, there would be no room for the atoms to move, which is the property of matter which we call temperature.

    ~~

    Explain gravity only theory for you?
    You are the one debunking EU theory.

    You can probably tell me better; in relativity, what the different tensors are for, in it’s field equations. Is there an Electro-magnetic tensor in relativity’s field equations, to account for the EM forces present?

    Since EM force is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, if taken into account, we might not need to pile up so much mass at M. And then we might not end up with physical objects that defy basic physics and maths.

    ~~

    Theory of Galaxy Ejection.
    In general EU theory, Stars are formed in the magnetic pinch of a Birkland current flowing through space. When the electromagnetic fields become great, the plasma they draw in becomes condensed and forms the Star’s body. And since the current continues to flow into the star after formation, it arcs, and the charge continues to build up until it is too great, then it ejects some matter. A discharge. A massive CME, like we haven’t seen in our history here, creating a spinning plasmoid that condenses under EM forces, and forms a planet. Arp’s galactic ejection theory is a scaled up version of this same process.

    ~~

    I don’t know Alfven’s theories well yet either.
    I’m not saying every EU theory ever proposed is correct, complete, and should be revived. But they are all worth looking at again, as we formulate new theory. It doesn’t seem good to me, to dismiss works of men like Arp and Alfven, simply because you believe theory is settled.

    And, plenty a scientist made a mistake when theorizing about relativity too. You didn’t dismiss GR and SGR because of that. So why do it to other theories?

    Theory is never settled.

    ~~

    Differences.
    EU theory is new. The are still many differences being sorted out. But that isn’t a reason to throw a theory in the trash can. You don’t do that with the theories you favor. So why do it to other theories?

    ~~

    The reason there are few published peer reviewed papers. is because mainstream peers don’t accept EU theory. They’re all hooked on relativity and the relativists are too busy dismissing EU theory, to peer review the papers properly. They don’t peer review sciences which are pre-judged to be pseudoscience. And the funders won’t fund the research, while all the relativists are convincing them, it is only acceptable GR research they must fund.

    But the papers are published, in books and on the Internet.

    Many people used the same arguments you put forward, to dismiss the theories now accepted, before they were so accepted.

    And when the EU paradigm becomes accepted… will you be one of the ones that say, “I believed in it all along”?

    ~~

    A person with a high school degree could… in just a few weeks?

    I suppose that’s why, as you pointed out, they now have 10s of thousands of scientists working on it.

    ~~

    Why no EU person ever did any research?
    (But these persons, Alfven, Arp, Birkeland, Einstein, Maxwell, perhaps even Tesla would have done that).

    You make such statements to support your argument that EU is pseudoscience, but such statements are not scientific.

    I have been researching for years, but I’m new to EU theory. Let me tell you a bit about me.

    I had a fascination for Mars. I spent years on the surface of Mars, and I didn’t even understand why. When EDM (electrical discharge machining) was explained to me, then I suddenly also understood why I had been so stuck on Mars. I was trying to resolve the cognitive dissonance between what I was observing, and the explanations given to us in the captions and articles. The explanations just did not fit with observation. But EDM explains them perfectly.

    The nuclear explanation for the Sun never sat well with me either. The Sun is observed to be a stable continuous system. Nuclear explosions are not like that, they are chaotic, and end very quickly. All the fuel is ignited at once, in both chemical and nuclear reactions. And besides that, what we do observe can be repeated in the laboratory, using a simple Crooks tube.

    Look at the lights on a Christmas tree. A primitive who never saw electricity before might presume the bulbs are self powered, because they shine. But we know, there is a wire joining them, that carries the power which lights them.

    Right now, modern science is like that primitive. They’re looking up at the stars, and still believing the stars are self powered, simply because they shine. We even have radio and other images, showing us the virtual wires. The current carrying fields, and even the currents are sometimes visible. But those that “own” the contemporary explanation for how the stars are powered are not receiving the observational evidence, even though it is before our very eyes.

    Lay people have an awesome window of opportunity right now, when they can know better than the great scientists of the time, just by being open minded, and unburdened with outdated theories, when looking at the things never before observed.

    Sincere regards
    `Paul

    1. I want to thank you again, Paul, for your post, and so clearly showing that whatever “EU theory” is, it isn’t science. In this post I’ll look at “EU theory” per your “If you want sources for EU theory, there is a resources section at the Thunderbolts forum.”

      I discovered, by googling that site and reading what I found, that
      * one self-avowed EU proponent asserts that the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion, not electricity
      * there seems to be fierce hatred towards science, by some (many?) members
      * an astonishing amount of material consists of little more than repetitions of an obvious false dichotomy, or the fallacy of the excluded middle as Brian calls it; summarizing with an example (this is not a quote), “observation X shows LCDM cosmological models to be WRONG, therefore EU theory must be RIGHT!!” (yes, I turned up the contrast a bit, but not much)
      * no EU proponent seems to have attempted to independently validate Arp’s conclusions re quasars and galaxies
      * indeed, there seems to be no references to any independent research, conducted by EU proponents (other than, perhaps, to SAFIRE)
      * almost all members seem to view popsci articles and PRs as primary souces; very few published papers are cited (this truly took my breath away; no wonder you couldn’t cite any paper using Voyager or IBEX-based data, in support of your assertion re currents?)
      * if you attempt to challenge Thornhill’s ideas on gravity you will be banned (not exactly “super friendly”, nor was anyone apparently ready to answer questions)
      * subjective feelings, like your “never sat well with me”, are extremely common, as are references to “beliefs”
      * ditto non-science “just so” stories, like yours (above) on how stars are formed; objective, independently verifiable proposals (etc) are completely absent (there may be some, but I did not come across any, in my reading).

      I was particularly struck by “comingfrom”‘s attempt to rebut what Brian wrote in his post; to me it has all the non-science characteristics I outlined in my previous post.

      For example, re Claim 2 “And which nobody but he himself is predicting we should see, if the Sun was electric.” Um, you clearly didn’t understand what Brian wrote, and apparently have not read the “EU theory” sources he explicitly cited (most of the other rebuttals are not science-based either; perhaps more due to your apparent ignorance of basic physics?)

      Finally, the response to Dr_Mat_Hunt seems to sum up the non-science nature of “EU theory”, and the non-science approach proponents take to it; he asked “What are the equations you use for plasma cosmology?”, and “comingfrom” replied (in part) that “We can use Maxwell’s equation to model …” Really? If it’s the same “comingfrom”, do I understand you to mean that you, personally, have used Maxwell’s equations to model plasmas? This member went on “But put uncountable millions of them, all with different charges and masses, together in an unconfined space, who can model how they will behave?” Such hubris! Particularly so as you (?) then went on to say “Check out the papers by Anthony Peratt” … if you had read those papers, you’d know the answer to your own question, and wouldn’t have needed Dr_Mat_Hunt to oh so gently point out that you clearly seem to have no idea what you were talking about.

      1. Thank you, Jean.

        That’s great, that you actually looked at the Thunderbolt Project’s website. And your observations are good, but not really objective.

        *Some EU advocates still believe the Sun is nuclear powered.
        Yes. Some want to keep a foot in each camp, at least until more confirming evidence arrives for them. I don’t really see anything wrong with this. These may even yet turn out to be correct.

        *Some there display hatred and disdain towards standard model science.
        Yes. Some of us feel very duped by the dark theories we were fed, and which they still feed the public.

        *there is repetition of false dichotomies.
        Repetition is good for ingraining into memory. It is only your opinion, that makes you say they are all false dichotomies. Exposing the failings of current paradigm was a very important aspect of learning about the EU for me.

        *No independent verification of Arp’s observations.
        Arp photographed and cataloged unusual galaxies, which anybody can peruse, and make up their own mind what they are observing. In the process of doing this work Arp also discovered incongruities in redshift of connected objects, and this has been verified. Relativists do not independently verify this, but they will say the non relativists have not independently verified.

        *No references to independent researchers.
        Only because your conviction is that there are no independent researchers, for a theory does not even exist. The references to the papers and works that are given, can only ever be references to pseudoscientists and their pseudoscientific works, to you.

        *references given are to popsci articles.
        Many of these popsci articles are from NASA, which they make when they report new findings. You need to refer to these for the findings. Popsci articles are also referenced to expose the bunkum which is being fed to the public. For EU references, they refer back to the scientists in our list, Birkland, Arp, Alfven, Juergans. Men whom you respect, but say, theorized incorrectly.

        *Banned for challenging ideas.
        This is not true. Those banned are banned for bad manners. Some challengers, rather than using scientific method and polite argument, resort to uncouth and unproductive language. And I’m glad these are quickly expelled.

        *Subjective feelings.
        Off the thunderbolts forum now. That feeling I expressed to you is based upon plain observation, which I included, so you could know why I possess that subjective notion. And I added supportive evidence.

        *non science “just so” stories
        I gave you the prediction of EU theory, which I read the EU scientists speak. It wasn’t my story. But I confess, I have bought into it.

        *Struck by comingfrom’s attempt to rebut Brian
        I was moved to respond to Brian, because I see he tested a couple of notions, but not the EU theory at all. I also saw posters speaking with a good oversight of what the EU theory even says. I was hoping to clarify what the EU theory is.

        That electricity was discovered to exist in space, is a strong confirmation for EU theory. No relativity model predicted that. That is the sort of test I look for.

        *Claim 2
        You too made predictions for EU theory, what the Sun’s spectra aught to look like if it were electric. And offer a spectrum that is not observed. This is called strawman. First say a wrong thing,and then burn it. Then you say I didn’t read the EU sources Brian presented. Sources which you at other times claim doesn’t exist.

        Your difficulty is that you need peer review. You can’t sort the wheat from the straw for yourself. And then, when you debunk a theory, you reach in and grab the straws. The straws are easy to break, but the straws are not the theory.

        *Maxwell? really?
        Back to the Thundebolts forum again. Maxwell is a good start. If you want to mathematically model plasmas, I don’t think you should exclude Maxwell. But naturally, one would have to progress from Maxwell, to fully model plasma behavior.

        *Hubris
        I was out of my depth there. I admit it. And as you point out, after saying modelling plasma would be nigh impossible, I did do some research, and found the man some papers.

        I know I am no mathematician.
        And I’m used to skeptics demanding me to “show the math”.
        I thought possibly, Mr Hunt, like so many, didn’t realize that EU theory is based upon classical science.
        I pulled my head in quickly, on that thread.

        ~~
        How are we going, Jean?
        Are we getting anywhere, or are we going in circles?

        Wishing you well
        `Paul

        1. For Jean.
          I’ll try making a link for you (haven’t done this here before, so forgive me if it doesn’t work).

          NASA Voyager 1 Encounters New Region in Deep Space. December 3, 2012

          When NASA says “highway”, and “roads”, they mean currents.
          Flows of charged particles are electric currents. Aren’t they?

          Their language is strange to me.
          “Particles zipping in and out on this magnetic highway”, “Solar wind slowed to zero”, and “trapped on roads”, just some examples.

          I can’t imagine why you weren’t able to google this.
          And I do apologize, that it is a popsci article.

          Cheers
          `Paul

          1. One of my several loose ends …

            Paul, I think I found the AGU Voyager 1 presentation referred to in the NASA PR; it’s “Voyager 1 Observations of Rapid Changes in the Heliosheath” by Edward Stone (link: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AGUFMSH13D..01S). I must say that I find the practice of not providing a link, or reference, to the primary source a particularly annoying practice. NASA seems particularly bad in this regard, and Brian particularly good (a great many, perhaps most, ESO and ESA PRs do have such links; for some strange reason EU fans seem to rarely reference such PRs).

            Here’s the abstract: “For the last eight and five years respectively, Voyager 1 and 2 have been exploring the spatial and dynamical properties of heliosheath. In April 2010, Voyager 1 entered a quasi-stagnation region at 113 AU in the northern heliosheath, with a slow flow speed, enhanced magnetic field, and long term changes in the intensities of termination shock particles, anomalous cosmic rays, and galactic cosmic ray electrons and nucleons. Recently, more rapid changes indicate further evolution in the region beyond 121 AU as Voyager 1 observed a 10% increase in cosmic rays with greater than 70 MeV over a four week period beginning May 7, 2012. An even more abrupt decrease of 50% in the intensity of Termination Shock Particles with greater than 0.5 MeV was observed on July 28 at 121 AU, followed by an equally rapid recovery on August 1. In contrast, at 99 AU in the southern heliosheath Voyager 2 finds the flow is faster and turning to flow tail ward, with more gradual changes in particle intensities. An overview of these observations and any further changes as Voyager 1 approaches the heliopause will be presented.”

            That was a conference presentation, and it should have been followed by a paper; however, the only paper (with Stone as an author) that seems relevant is arXiv:1212.0883 (link: http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0883), which is more about cosmic rays than the heliosheath. However, there is a 2013 paper that seems to be based on the same (or similar) data, “The Global Configuration of the Heliosheath Inferred from Recent Voyager 1 Observations”, Fisk&Gloeckler (link: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ…776…79F). Here’s the abstract:

            “Recent observations from Voyager 1 in the nose region of the heliosheath, an area created by the motion of the Sun through the local interstellar medium, have revealed that: (1) beyond ~113 AU from the Sun, the anisotropy of low-energy ions becomes very small in all directions, which has been interpreted as indicating that the solar wind flow speed has decreased to near zero; (2) at ~120 AU, anomalous cosmic rays (ACRs) are accelerated to their highest energies; and (3) at ~122 AU, there is a precipitous decrease both in ACRs and in termination shock particles (TSPs) that are convected downstream from the termination shock. In this paper, the low-energy anisotropy observations are interpreted as implying, not that the solar wind flow speed has decreased to near zero, but rather that the solar wind flow is closely aligned with the magnetic field direction, which is observed to be in the azimuthal direction. A simple model for the heliosheath is then constructed, based on the anisotropy observations and the observational evidence that the dominant pressure is contained in pickup ions, TSPs, and ACRs. The model predicts that there are jets of supersonic and super-Alfvénic solar wind flowing along the flanks of the heliosheath, stretching and opening the heliosheath magnetic field into the interstellar medium. TSPs and ACRs that are accelerated in the nose region can easily escape along the magnetic field in the open region of the heliosheath, resulting in the precipitous decrease in the intensity of TSPs and ACRs.”

            Note especially “A simple model for the heliosheath is then constructed, based on the anisotropy observations and the observational evidence …” Yep, right up the EU’s alley: reliance on empirical evidence, and plasma physics.

            Returning to your post; you write “When NASA says “highway”, and “roads”, they mean currents. Flows of charged particles are electric currents. Aren’t they?”
            * No, NASA almost certainly did not mean currents; read the Fisk&Gloeckler paper for details (it’s not behind a paywall)
            * No, flows of charged particles MAY be electric currents, but not necessarily; for example, when a fireboat sprays sea water from its nozzle, the flow contains vast numbers of charged particles (e.g. Na and Cl ions) yet there is no current. The same can be true for a plasma.

            If you think there’s a better plasma-physics-based model of the heliosheath, one that’s more consistent with the EU paradigm, please, give us a reference. Or, why not develop your own model?

    2. “Arp was a proponent of EU theories.”

      Arp made this comment in 2010 in a private correspondence to a colleague.

      “Dear JCU student,
      I think the galaxies start out as very low mass charged particles.
      That would certainly be electric dominated.
      But I see no evidence for electric dominated matter on a galaxy scale or cosmic scale today.
      Halton Arp”

      Strange how this Arp’s comment fly in the face of him being a “proponent of EU theories”.
      Evidently expressing a non mainstream view qualifies one as being a proponent.

      Is this why Alfven qualifies as well.
      By your own admission of not being very familiar with his works, his supposed claim of the Big Bang being a myth is evidently more important than analysing his work in plasma cosmology or MHD to see if it is consistent with “EU theories”.

      If this is the criteria I nominate Fred Hoyle as a “proponent of EU theories” for his coinage of the satirical term “Big Bang”.

      “You can probably tell me better; in relativity, what the different tensors are for, in it’s field equations. Is there an Electro-magnetic tensor in relativity’s field equations, to account for the EM forces present?”

      Actually there is. When the energy momentum tensor in the field equations is non zero, it indicates the presence of external forces in the field including electromagnetic forces.
      In this case the electromagnetic tensor explicitly turns up as a contribution to the energy momentum tensor.

      “Since EM force is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, if taken into account, we might not need to pile up so much mass at M. And then we might not end up with physical objects that defy basic physics and maths.”

      What happened to the Debye length? Even your hero Alfven would have told you electromagnetic forces are extremely short ranged in a plasma dominated Universe. How does such a short range force of around 10^5 m for the intergalactic medium dominate at cosmological scales?

      The list is by no means exhausted…..

  55. Thanks Paul, your post is a wonderful exposition of why, whatever “EU theory” is, it’s not science. At least in your interpretation of it.

    First, something about me. Just like you, I am a layman; I am not a professional astronomer, astrophysicist, or space scientist, and never have been. I do have a Bachelor’s degree in Science (a BSc); my major was physics.

    Alfven, Ampere, Arp, Birkeland, Faraday, Langmuir, Maxwell, the tens of thousands of plasma astrophysicists and space scientists, … all prize consistency. Which is no surprise, since without consistency there can be no science.

    Which brings me to why “EU theory”, as you explain it, cannot possibly be science. Let’s take a look at some of the inconsistencies …

    “EU theory merely states that the Universe is powered by electricity. From Galaxy formation to what lights up the stars, is all caused by electricity.” – that’s your core explanation of “EU theory”. Let’s see whether you use this definition consistently:

    “Tesla was a proponent of EU theory. Arp was a proponent of EU theories.
    Birkland, Alfven, Perrat, Langmuir, Juergans… Also, in a previous post, you admit there are 10s of thousands of scientists now working in the field of EU theory.” “In general EU theory,” “every EU theory ever proposed”. “Plasma cosmology is EU theory.” “the EU paradigm”

    You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions; however, you are not entitled to your own facts. As you defined it, Arp was not a proponent of “EU theory”, nor was Alfven, Birkeland, or Langmuir (I know who Peratt is, but not Perrat nor Juergans). Why not? Because nothing in their published works is consistent with “the Universe is *powered* by electricity”. Note well the emphasis on “powered”.

    Then we have not one, but many “EU theories”; and a “general EU theory” too.

    Here’s another: “EU theory is new.” (singular, just one). Yet, per you, Alfven, Arp, Birkeland, … were all proponents of this “theory”. However, most are dead, several long dead. How, then, can “EU theory” be “new”?

    One more (there are a great many more I could have chosen): “The reason there are few published peer reviewed papers. is because mainstream peers don’t accept EU theory.” Really? So how come scientists have been able to publish papers on plasma cosmology? And those tens of thousands of scientists who “work in the field of EU theory” seem to have had no trouble getting their papers published.

    Such an, um, elastic definition of the key, and so many obvious inconsistencies; whatever it is, it cannot be science.

    Mis-statements, omission of key elements, refusal (?) to cite primary sources, … these are hallmarks of poor scholarship, and have no place in science. Yet your post is replete with them; a few examples:

    “you admit there are 10s of thousands of scientists now working in the field of EU theory.” No, I said they work/worked on “electricity in space”, and few if any work/worked on “the Universe is powered by electricity”. I was also careful to NOT say they are “now working” (many are long since dead, for example; the time period is ~late 1950s to today). Did you deliberately mis-state? or is your concept of “EU theory”, in your own mind, wildly inconsistent (and with your very own definition)?

    “Since EM force is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity” No it isn’t, unless you are very careful to explain exactly what you mean. Also, you (deliberately?) omitted to mention that “EM force” can be attractive or repulsive, but gravity is only attractive.

    “But if one could condense all matter so, there would be no room for the atoms to move, which is the property of matter which we call temperature.” This may simply be your ignorance of basic physics, rather than a deliberate mis-statement.

    I was quite struck by your “just so” stories, from “In fact, they have found even more quasars with different red shifts to the galaxy they are connected to. Isn’t it?” (no; you think otherwise, cite primary sources); to “Because there is still great resistance to EU theory.” (no, because there is no such thing); to “In general EU theory, Stars are formed in the magnetic pinch of a Birkland current flowing …” (no objective, independently verifiable material, just a story you guys made up); “They’re all hooked on relativity and the relativists are too busy dismissing EU theory, to peer review the papers properly” (great yarn; pity it’s entirely fabricated); “Many people used the same arguments you put forward, to dismiss the theories now accepted, before they were so accepted.” (no need for objective, independently verifiable research on the EU theory/theories then?); “But EDM explains them perfectly” (you expect your readers to accept you at your word?) “The Sun is observed to be a stable continuous system. Nuclear explosions are not like that, they are chaotic” (nice tall tale; pity it’s so wrong); “They’re looking up at the stars, and still believing the stars are self powered, simply because they shine” (no, and even you must know how false this is); etc, etc, etc.

    What would Maxwell do, if he had to read your post? Alfven? Langmuir? Birkeland? While I think some might have praised you for your enthusiasm, I doubt any would have complemented you on your scholarship or the (internal and external) consistency of your assertions; Alfven in particular would surely have been very curt with you.

    All in all excellent teaching material, on the difference between science and, well, whatever “EU theory” is.

    (next post will be on “EU theory” beyond your own, inconsistent and obviously subjective views)

    1. Thank you, Jean.

      OK, let’s look at the inconsistencies.
      First, you class all those scientists that believed the Universe is electric as not being EU theorists.
      Why you say? Because their works are inconsistent with EU.

      It is not just my interpretation. if you had read the publications (but you say none exist) by the contemporary EU writers, all their notions are extrapolations based upon the works and ideas of those famous scientists you listed.

      EU theorists don’t just believe the works of these scientists, but the EU ideas they spoke as well. You relativists (and you confessed this here) are only taking from this list of great men what you cannot possibly deny, and you’re discounting the rest (their theories), which is the very EU theory you say they are incompatible with, and doesn’t exist.

      (I know, you said their theories were disproved, to justify you saying this. But I believe you are simply hoping their theories would not be raised again. And now EU theorists are raising them again.)

      ~
      You question “powered by”.
      A very recent NASA announcement declared that the theoretical Black Hole at the center of our galaxy is powered by magnetism. One day, astrophysicists might remember from classical electrical theory, what generates a magnetic field. (NASA doesn’t say “theoretical”, but I do, for accuracy).

      Modern Astronomy speaks a lot about magnetism in space, but not at all about the currents which necessarily must be there, for the magnetic fields to exist. Alfven warned against this.

      ~
      “variations”
      Yes. There are many variations of EU theory. EU theorists know their field is new, and none of them are claiming to be the definitive model yet.

      ~
      “Long dead”.
      Long dead to the skeptics which are still trying to kill it. EU is older that GR, yet it is newer. Because GR put EU on the backburner for 100 years or so, in the consciousness of the public.

      ~
      “How come scientists can publish papers on plasma cosmology?”
      Plasma cosmology is the cosmological arm of EU theory. Plasma experiments can be replicated in a laboratory. Despite the complexity of so many variables moving so fast, it can be described mathematically. Therefore the peers could not deny these papers. (And most plasma papers are plasma physics, not plasma cosmology.)

      And still, in spite of the publications you mention, modern astronomers are still more often saying things like “hot gas” and “dust clouds” and “galactic wind” and similar such terms, where they should simply be saying plasma, and “accretion disc” where they should be saying plasma sphere. By doing so, in their minds they strip their gas, cloud, wind, or disc, of it’s plasma properties, which are electric in nature. And in the minds of the public (and many scientists) also, who read and believe their papers.

      ~
      “So many inconsistencies.”
      Yes, so many inconsistencies with the accepted theories of relativity, that it couldn’t possibly be science. I know, science is only science, when scientific dudes like you declare it is so.

      ~
      “No, I said they are working on electricity in space.”
      That is how EU theory is developed. Until recently, electricity in space was completely denied. How can space conduct currents? they told Birkland, let alone all the way from the Sun to Earth. EU theory says electricity is everywhere in space, and when the space exploring satellites confirmed this, then they suddenly had to make an effort to study electricity in space. And you are in effect saying to me, electricity in Space isn’t a science yet. And that only because you cannot yet come at the term electric universe.

      ~
      “No, it isn’t” – to EM force compared to gravity.
      I gave you a scientific fact there. You simply denied. Did you go check that fact?

      ~
      “(deliberately?) omitted mentioning EM force is attractive and repulsive, and gravity is only one way.”
      I don’t even know if that is a true statement, and if it is, it still is not relevant to the point. Newton, Einstein, and any honest scientist will tell you, we don’t understand what gravity is yet. All we can do is describe it’s effects, by the analysis of observation, and we come up with sums to do this.

      ~
      “Cite primary sources” – for redshift observations.
      Look, this is a discussion comment, not a paper. I speak from memory of the many articles I have read, where astrophysicists declared their astonishment at some latest observation, which went against standard redshift/Big Bang theory. So I found a couple of these for you to look up, for my citation. NGC 7319 & 3C405

      There is a problem sourcing lists of observations that don’t conform to the standard models. Such papers don’t get favorable peer review, and so don’t get published in the canons of science .

      ~
      ““Because there is still great resistance to EU theory.” (no, because there is no such thing)”
      This is precisely what those that are resistant say.

      ~
      “(no objective, independently verifiable material, just a story you guys made up);”
      Modeled by Perrat, using super computer simulation based on his understanding of the behavior of plasma, and using standard electric formulas.

      I was speaking the prediction of EU theory. Just like, when Black Holes are mentioned, that is relativists speaking of a prediction of their relativity theory. Nobody has ever verified a Black Hole yet either.

      ~
      “(great yarn; pity it’s entirely fabricated)”
      To me, you’re living proof. You are one hooked on relativity, and too busy calling EU a pseudoscience to read the papers objectively.

      And why would you? whilst ever you believe it to be a pseudoscience, you’re only going to continue thumbing your nose at it. Isn’t it?

      ~
      ” (no need for objective, independently verifiable research on the EU theory/theories then?); ”
      That’s not what I was saying. You are making a false assumption to insinuate evil upon me, for your argument against the things that I spoke. And then your false assumption becomes more proof to you, that EU is a pseudoscience.

      EU scientists are crying out for funding for research. Look up SAFIRE.

      ~
      “(you expect your readers to accept you at your word?)”
      No, I don’t expect my readers to accept me at my word. If my words put their nose out of joint, I expect them to go do their research.

      Just like I did, when you caught me out with my “infinite mass” error. You can be sure I will never make that error again. 😉

      ~
      “What would Maxwell do, if he had to read your post? Alfven? Langmuir? Birkeland?”
      It would not surprise me if these would be proud, to see that at least some of their ideas have filtered down to at least some of the lay public.

      But I don’t pretend I can read other men’s minds.

      ~
      ” Alfven in particular would surely have been very curt with you.”
      Is this why you be curt with me?

      Alfven was particularly curt to the astrophysicists who don’t include the source of the magnetic fields observed in space.

      Please, don’t compare me with the great men of science.
      Think of me as being more like you, rather than expecting me to be as great as those great men were.

      Best regards
      `Paul

      1. Thanks Paul. As I read it, your comments here are consistent with many I read on the forum you recommended as a reference.

        An example, “scientists that believed”, “don’t just believe the works”, “But I believe”, “NASA announcement declared that”, “to the skeptics which are still trying to kill it”, “was completely denied”, … you seem to treat science as akin to a religion, or a conspiracy, in which there is no place for objectivity or independent verification.

        Question: for you, as you understand science, what is the role of assessing consistency between models and observational data? How should such assessments be carried out?

        Another: “You relativists (and you confessed this here)”, “that is relativists speaking”, “By doing so, in their minds”, “You simply denied”, … despite what you wrote earlier, you seem to be making everything personal, and seem keen to ascribe motives and beliefs. By doing so you seem to be trivializing the role of assessing consistency between model and data. May I ask, why is that?

        Sadly, your latest post is chock-a-block full of misrepresentations, too many for me even try to correct. Here are just a few:

        “First, you class all those scientists that believed the Universe is electric as not being EU theorists.” No, I did not. I took your definition of “EU theory”, and checked whether you had applied it consistently. For example, I wrote “As you defined it, Arp was not a proponent of “EU theory”, nor was Alfven, Birkeland, or Langmuir”.

        “you said their theories were disproved” No, I did not. I may have overlooked one, but I could find nothing that I wrote here which uses the word “prove” (or “disprove”). That’s quite deliberate; I try to be very careful to say things like “inconsistent, objectively and independently verifiable”. Proof is for mathematics, not science. Perhaps, to you, my phrasing is the same as “proof”, but that’s you projecting your own biases onto me. Please stop doing it.

        “I gave you a scientific fact there. You simply denied. Did you go check that fact?”

        OK, let’s you and I check this. Let’s assume Coulomb’s law, and Newton’s. Both are inverse square relations, with ‘force’ conventionally on the left-hand side. The right-hand sides each contain a constant, and a pair of variables, charges for Coulomb’s law, masses for Newton’s. From this, please show me – objectively, in a manner that is independently verifiable – that “EM force is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity”. And please, do not quote something you googled, work this out yourself.

        “Modeled by Perrat, using super computer simulation based on his understanding of the behavior of plasma, and using standard electric formulas.” Here’s your original quote, in full: “Stars are formed in the magnetic pinch of a Birkland current flowing through space. When the electromagnetic fields become great, the plasma they draw in becomes condensed and forms the Star’s body. And since the current continues to flow into the star after formation, it arcs, and the charge continues to build up until it is too great, then it ejects some matter. A discharge. A massive CME, like we haven’t seen in our history here, creating a spinning plasmoid that condenses under EM forces, and forms a planet. Arp’s galactic ejection theory is a scaled up version of this same process.” First, a citation please, to whatever document (or documents) Peratt published this in. And yes, I did try to find a paper by Peratt in which he reports modeling something similar to what you wrote, but I was unsuccessful. Second, I could find nothing on “Arp’s galactic ejection theory” being a scaled-up version. So, a citation please. Then we can, together, sit down and go through the primary documents to see just how consistent your ‘just so story’ is with what Peratt (and Arp?) actually published.

        Some other points:
        * “So I found a couple of these for you to look up, for my citation. NGC 7319 & 3C405” Thanks! I’ll read up on them and get back to you.
        * “Please, don’t compare me with the great men of science.” I didn’t, and don’t. I am merely suggesting that you try to learn from them, in terms of what ‘doing science’ involves, in concrete, practical terms.

      2. One rather glaring inconsistency I didn’t mention:

        “But I don’t pretend I can read other men’s minds.”

        Is this the same comingfrom who wrote the following?

        “By doing so, in their minds they strip their gas, cloud, wind, or disc, of it’s plasma properties, which are electric in nature.” – comingfrom clearly seems to be able to read at least some other men’s minds.

        “And that only because you cannot yet come at the term electric universe” – amazing! comingfrom can read my mind!

        “EU theorists don’t just believe the works of these scientists” – how can comingfrom know what EU theorists believe, or not believe, unless he can read their minds?

        “The reason there are few published peer reviewed papers. is because mainstream peers don’t accept EU theory. They’re all hooked on relativity and the relativists are too busy dismissing EU theory, to peer review the papers properly.” – “hooked”, eh? “don’t accept”. Seems like comingfrom is claiming to be able to read “mainstream peers”‘s minds (albeit it’s an indirect claim).

      3. “EU scientists are crying out for funding for research.”

        OK, apart from SAFIRE, what would spend funds on?

        Assume you have a budget of up to US$1 billion, what EU theory-based hypotheses or models – specifically – would seek to test?

        If the funding were restricted to instruments on space probes, what would those instruments be, and what would they be designed to do? Where would you send such space probes (assume the cost and mission control costs were paid for outside the $1bn)?

        If the funding were restricted to astronomical research, what telescopes etc would you build from scratch? What would such facilities be used to test?

  56. Thank you Jean.

    * “Your comments are consistent with…”
    It’s great, that you are now seeing some consistency. Makes me feel like I am getting somewhere.

    I did reference Thunderbolts, but as central point, where one can find EU references.

    * “you seem to treat akin to a religion, or a conspiracy.”
    And you judge me by what seems.

    But how I seem to you, is no test for the EU.

    You better be objective, if you ever want to delve into religion too.

    * “Question: As you understand science…”
    As I understand it, each individual will assess the observational data in their own unique way, and shaped by the field they specialize in.
    And some will be biased, and some will do good work.

    * “Question: Why trivialize the role of assessing…”
    I’m not intentionally trivializing assessing the data. I presume you have done your assessing, and that is why you say the things you say. People speak from what they know, and what they know comes from assessing data. Don’t you say, the data leads you to say EU theory is pseudoscience?

    But it is a point. Because, even about a single data set, different people will say many different things, after they have assessed.

    We see it also in religions, with vastly differing interpretations all coming from assessing the same book.

    * “Misrepresentations.”
    Then you talk about where I was trying to explain to you, those same scientists you list, and use to debunk EU, are the same guys we EU theorists look to support EU.

    We are both looking at the same data set, but ending with vastly different interpretations, after assessing.

    And to each of us, the other look likes they are making misrepresentations.
    I know, just looks like. We don’t mean to misrepresent, but we speak from our beliefs.

    * you said their theories were disproved “No, I did not.”
    Hang on there. I did speak my presumption there, but didn’t you debunk Arp’s theory of galactic ejection? Didn’t you speak of Alfven’s work, that it was good, but that his theories were disproved? And that’s why they were rejected, and another reason why EU theory can’t be right. You may not have used the words “prove” or “disprove”, but I think I remember your discourses.

    * “Work this out for yourself”
    It only has to be a fraction of gravity, and it is already supporting the point EU people are making. And yes, I trust in the people that reported that. More than I can trust my ability with physics concepts and maths. And you have to trust memory too, which is not failsafe. What if I mis-remembered what I read, and it is really only 36 orders of magnitude? These things happen.

    I have my way of assessing data, which is to take it all in, and believe none of it. In the taking in of data, previous data is either confirmed or denied. I have come across this figure a few times. Nobody is disputing it. Hopefully, your calculations confirm it too. I will add whatever you say to my data set.

    * You should go look at Perrat’s model. Pretty sure I saw it on Youtube.
    It shows a cross section of an interacting pair of Birkland currents. That will answer your question, where I got that.

    * “In terms of doing science.”
    I’m a layman, extremely happy at having found a model of the Universe I can actually understand, and which explains my own observations even better than “science” does. Not only my own seeing of the images returned from space and the extraterrestrial bodies, but the data readings NASA reports back also regularly confirms the EU model.

    I’m just saying, it’s worth opening your mind, and having a look.
    Look at the sky. Look at the plasma in the sky. Look at how the cations behave.
    Tons of matter up there, trying to fall to Earth. That’s not counting the water that has become magnetized to the ions, all aligning their poles to the ion, so form little crystals which refract the Sun’s light and so make the cloud of ions visible to us. Watch them breakup, see how they flow outwards, in sheets and in filaments. See great currents flowing across the sky.

    The electrons in the currents coming in at the poles don’t see the atmosphere as a resistance. Their mass is tiny. The cations are huge by comparison. They bump into the air molecules and get caught up. The accumulation of ions in the upper layer causes charge build up and it forms a double layer. But it has to discharge some time, and the ions leak into the lower atmosphere where they attract H2O molecules, due to the bipolar nature of H2O. A build up ions/charge in a particular region creates a storm, which will discharge to the ground, as rain and as lightning. Or just rain.

    And so the Earth grows. One atom at a time, at the center of each raindrop. The electrons which entered into the Earth, like it is a big semi conductor, provide a natural abundance of electrons for the cations to capture once they are on the ground, and they neutralize. There is an overabundance of oxygen and silicon in the Solar wind, hence the Earth is mainly rock. Silicon dioxide.

    ~~~~~Next post

    * Glaring inconsistency
    When I said “don’t pretend to read men’s minds” you were speaking about how certain men might think towards me. They are not here, and so cannot reveal their minds to us, how they might consider my posts.

    When I said “in their minds they strip their gas of it’s plasma properties” I am speaking to what they reveal they are thinking. You reveal what you think when you speak what you think. And Astrophysicicts are revealing that they think of plasma as gas when they call it that, and not mention the charges it contains.

    And then a bit of; everything I say I’m reading someone’s mind.

    When I speak, you are getting what I think.
    And I think we’re slipping into slur and semantics here.

    ~~~~Post above (starting to get way above. lol)

    * “I appreciate your intents, Paul…”
    You seem sincere to me too, Jean. And it has been a pleasure speaking with you.

    * “..but I think you are failing to communicate properly.”
    Well, yes, I do understand that most here are probably far more educated than myself.
    On the other hand, I never increased my knowledge by being shy. And I won’t improve my communications skills if I don’t speak.

    * citations
    I rather believe, for the most part, Alfven, Birkland, and others like you mentioned, reported their findings from their work in the field and in the lab. And then the rest of us cite them. But for their theoretical papers, I agree with you.

    And you have the right to demand the same in discussion conversations.
    If it is in the terms and conditions of posting here, I’m sorry.

    * you must only search physics.org or something. Just the sites for peer reviewed papers.

    If all the peers agree with you, and you (the majority of the public) agree with all the peers, dissension no longer gets published.

    That doesn’t mean it is no longer going on.

    I don’t understand why this is not obvious.

    * Contending against….
    That’s anybody, really, who writes ideas outside of your own paradigm, and that also includes the expression “electric Universe”.

    Nobody in their right mind should say, “electric Universe”.
    Is this correct?

    * Are you afraid of speculative ideas?
    You don’t seem to be troubled by Black Holes. Yet they are a wildly speculative idea.
    Sure, they can be constructed using math. But to say they actually exist, that is a speculation.

    And what do mathematically constructed holes suck in?

    * Why not repeat Arp’s work?
    Give me a telescope, and I will. 🙂
    And this is just it, isn’t it? If Arp lost his telescope time over this issue, who will they give it to, to check Arp’s work on this issue.

    I did in fact hear about one independent research project, but it was set up for the sole purpose to discredit or disprove Arp’s findings. Of course, you want a citation, and I don’t really have the time to find it for you.

    They way I heard the story, Arp’s redshift observation was never disputed. His debunkers were rather trying to say the the objects were distant from each other, and were denying the obvious apparent bridge connecting them .

    * In EU theory, the orbital motions are not due to gravity.
    In GR, gravity is calculated from the orbital motions.

    You may call me dishonest, but I call you a gravity only theorist.

    * Yeah, I understand this part all too well now.
    A deep understanding is required, which only the priests have. If one be steeped in their scriptures, attaining to degrees, and agreeing with what is agreed, then they too may be dubbed a priest. Sorry, I mean a scientist.

    Otherwise, you’re a pseudoscientist, if you try to express any scientific ideas.

    You’ve drummed it into me.
    I’ve learned what Jean Tate teaches.

    Thank you kindly for that.
    Good day.
    `Paul

    1. I’ve got very little free time for the next week or so, so I’ll have to return to most of what you wrote later, Paul.

      For now, just a few things:

      * you seem to be very confused about the difference between astronomical observations and the conclusions drawn from analyzing them. The data that you get from the instruments attached to an optical telescope, say, are the observations (small caveat: the raw data is usually not much use, you need to process it first, to remove instrumental artifacts, for example). The conclusions you draw from analyzing the data (observations) is what you present in papers you write.

      * “* Why not repeat Arp’s work?” Give me a telescope, and I will. :)”

      OK, suppose you were allocated a million seconds of Hubble Space Telescope time, and the freedom to use whichever instrument on it (and whatever filters, etc). Where would you point the Hubble, and why there?

      * “* You should go look at Perrat’s model. Pretty sure I saw it on Youtube.It shows a cross section of an interacting pair of Birkland currents. That will answer your question, where I got that.” You relied upon a Youtube video, as the primary source!?!? Sorry Paul, if that’s all you’ve got I’ll soon be out of here …

      Lastly, for now: Here’s what I wrote above:

      “OK, let’s you and I check this. Let’s assume Coulomb’s law, and Newton’s. Both are inverse square relations, with ‘force’ conventionally on the left-hand side. The right-hand sides each contain a constant, and a pair of variables, charges for Coulomb’s law, masses for Newton’s. From this, please show me – objectively, in a manner that is independently verifiable – that “EM force is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity”. And please, do not quote something you googled, work this out yourself.”

      And here’s how you responded:

      “It only has to be a fraction of gravity, and it is already supporting the point EU people are making. And yes, I trust in the people that reported that. More than I can trust my ability with physics concepts and maths. And you have to trust memory too, which is not failsafe. What if I mis-remembered what I read, and it is really only 36 orders of magnitude? These things happen.”

      In other words, you are unwilling to test what you read, in an objective, independently verifiable way? And when offered the opportunity to do so, you decline? Let’s refresh our memories of your statement, the one that triggered my “OK …”:

      “I gave you a scientific fact there. You simply denied. Did you go check that fact?”

      So now it’s a “fact” that may have mis-remembered? And one you have no intention of even trying to check for yourself?

      “How are we going, Jean? Are we getting anywhere, or are we going in circles?”

      Well, to my own satisfaction, I have shown that you seem very confused as to what “EU theory” actually is, and can not point to a primary source where it is defined in scientific terms. One the one hand you declared that it requires “electricity” to “power” the universe; on the other, you seem to accept that plasma astrophysics is “EU theory”. Such a huge contradiction seems not to concern you at all, and had led me to conclude (tentatively) that whatever it is, EU theory is not science.

      I’m also happy that you have confirmed that you do not rely upon primary, scientific, sources; in fact, it seems you never even read them. This seems quite consistent with what’s on the TB website. Or, as Brian put it in a much early post, “The EU folks play at science, but they aren’t actually doing science.”

        1. Thanks Daniel. I’ll read what’s on the site you recommend, and comment later, maybe next week.

          Did you post a link to a WP page “fundamental interaction”, over inTB? I’m curious to hear what Paul thinks of it, particularly in terms of consistency, beliefs, denial, etc

    2. “Give me a telescope, and I will. And this is just it, isn’t it?”

      No it isn’t. You don’t need telescope time to be an astronomer anymore, with HST for example about half of the papers published each year come from archival data. An astronomer doesn’t have to write a single proposal to have access to decades of data. If you do require new data you better have a damn good reason why no existing observations will do.

      And people have tested much of Arp’s work with respect to periodic redshifts, it was squarely dismissed with SDSS (Tang, and Zhang 2005), again the data for which is freely available to all.

    3. Me: “Question: for you, as you understand science, what is the role of assessing consistency between models and observational data? How should such assessments be carried out?”

      Paul: “As I understand it, each individual will assess the observational data in their own unique way, and shaped by the field they specialize in.
      And some will be biased, and some will do good work.”

      I have a bit of time now, and I’d like to explore this. Why? Because I think it gets to the heart of what the EU is, to you, and in particular to what extent it could be said to be science (looking at just your own, personal, interpretation of it).

      First, I must say that your approach seems rather like postmodernism, which to me is about as far from science as it is possible to get.

      What follows is a hypothetical, designed to capture a number of elements around my ‘consistency, objectivity, independence, and verification/validation’, and to see if I can better understand your approach.

      Let’s say you, me, and Daniel want to research Arp’s idea re ‘discordant redshifts’. You do so by obtaining time on some telescope or other, to examine a number of objects, with very different redshifts, for possible physical associations. I choose to use publicly available SDSS data, and to test for associations in a statistical manner. Daniel chooses to use SkyMapper data (not yet publicly available, but will be in a few years’ time) using a mix of statistical tools and examination of a few candidate ‘discordant redshift’ systems.

      You publish your plan ahead of time, including target objects/fields and how you intend to test for physical association. I do not. Daniel lays out his entire program in great detail, before he starts.

      Data obtained, analyses performed, results written up, and published. You publish on TB; I publish in vixra; Daniel submits to astro-ph.

      You report mixed/equivocal results; some systems you find to be physically associated, others not, and many ‘uncertain’.

      I report finding a strong association, in a statistical sense.

      Daniel reports no robust associations, either statistically or for the handful of targets he examines.

      None of us mentions Arp’s “model” (roughly, quasars ejected from active galaxies, which turn into normal galaxies as they move away).

      sjastro, someone none of knows let alone has worked with before, looks at all three publications and says:
      * your report is independently verifiable and objective; however, he thinks it contains serious methodological shortcomings; specifically, you did not do any ‘null testing’
      * my report appears objective, but is not independently verifiable; he thinks it contains both trivial arithmetic errors and inappropriate statistical analyses; worst however is that the data I used is not published
      * Daniel’s report is independently verifiable and objective; however, he thinks that the testing for physical association, for the handful of targets is far from robust.

      He also says that none of the publications has been peer-reviewed, though Daniel’s likely will be, if he submits it to MNRAS.

      Given the above, and only the above, how would you, Paul, rate each of these pieces of research, as science?

    4. Rather than go through what you said, point by point, I’d like to focus on what I think is key; namely, what is science, when it comes to the EUverse, astronomy, and astrophysics.

      You wrote: “”* “Question: Why trivialize the role of assessing…”
      I’m not intentionally trivializing assessing the data. I presume you have done your assessing, and that is why you say the things you say. People speak from what they know, and what they know comes from assessing data.”

      So how, in your view of what science is, should the ‘assessing of data’ be done? And what is the role of objectivity in this process?

      “Don’t you say, the data leads you to say EU theory is pseudoscience?” No. And it’s this (deliberate?) misrepresentation of what I wrote that leads me to think we seem to be have a deep, possibly unbridgeable, gap in our respective abilities to communicate.

      For the record, I said (many times) that, based on what you and Daniel have said (and what you recommended that I read), whatever the EUverse is, I think it is not science.

      Why do I think we have a deep communication problem? Partly because of the huge number of parts of your post, where you seem to have re-stated (in your own words) what I wrote, but which are quite inconsistent with what I ACTUALLY wrote (sorry for shouting, but it’s something that really peeves me).

      While I have no expectation that you will answer this, considering how many direct, simple questions of mine you’ve ignored so far, but still … you wrote: “I’m a layman, extremely happy at having found a model of the Universe I can actually understand, and which explains my own observations even better than “science” does.”

      As you have written, EM is at the core of this “model of the Universe I can actually understand”. Why, then, as you understand it, is the hydrogen atom stable?

  57. I quote OP:
    “The basic claim of the Electric Universe model is that much of the astronomical phenomena observed in the universe is driven by electrical interactions rather than gravitational ones”

    WRONG

    EU supposes both are present, gravity and E/M. The paradigm is to look more to E/M interactions and to study it and not to ignore it.

    Regards,
    Daniel

    1. Author

      Actually mainstream astrophysics understands both gravity and EM play roles. We study EM extensively. EU supporters claim we ignore EM, arguing that EM is driving interactions that are gravitationally driven. My original statement is correct.

    2. I’ve been reading the material you mentioned, Daniel (albeit rather slowly; not much time), and I find – so far – your characterization to be quite at odds with what’s in those very pages.

      For example, in the glossary, one reads this: “Gravity-centric: Today’s standard theories in astronomy consider gravity to be the primary driving force of the universe, with electricity playing a relatively minor role in local events and no role at all on the grander scale.”

      This seems to indicate that the authors have ~no idea about plasma astrophysics. In their telling of history, for example, there’s no mention of things like the 2010 WOPA (workshop on opportunities in plasma astrophysics; link: http://w3.pppl.gov/conferences/2010/WOPA/index.html), and the dozens, if not hundreds, of ~similar workshops, colloquia, symposia, etc held in the last 2+ decades.

      Worse: aside from the almost complete lack of a bibliography and meaningful citations to primary sources (this alone suggests that the authors of those pages play at science, but are not actually doing it), almost all the material on plasmas in the universe seems to rely on a really small number of sources, most of them quite old.

      There also seems to be oodles of apparent, and deep, incompatibilities and inconsistencies, with the case of special relativity being particularly glaring. For example, in the section “who disproved Einstein” one reads this: “Allais wrapped it up thusly: “Consequently, the Special and General Theory of Relativity, resting on postulates invalidated by observational data, cannot be considered as scientifically valid.”” Woah! Really?!?

      So where’s the deep contradiction, the profound inconsistency? Just one example: in the section “If you’re not doing math, you’re not doing real science”, one reads “We now see massive flows of charged particles, ranging from immeasurably subtle to explosively energetic”. And how do we “see” such massive flows? We interpret it, by analyzing the data which comes from gamma-ray, x-ray, infrared observatories (in space), radio, gamma-ray, cosmic ray observatories (on the Earth). And what do those analyses involve? All of them involve “math”. And almost all of them also incorporate special relativity (SR), sometimes directly but mostly hidden in the background.

      And? Well, if “EU theory” (Paul’s term), the EU as a paradigm (in the source you cited Daniel), and EU model(s) (ditto) are to be science (per the many claims in that source), then EU fans will have to painstakingly re-analyze (using the dreaded math) every single image (and all non-image data) from any of these observatories (and the in situ plasma science instruments on space probes, and those from the Hubble) to
      a) determine which rely inextricably on SR;
      b) figure out how to transform that data into a form that’s free of all traces of SR;
      c) re-analyze it all, from scratch, within the SR-free framework
      d) show that the re-analyzed images etc are consistent with what your source claims is what we now “see”.

      Up one level: I was pretty shocked as I was reading that material, Daniel; the apparent unquestioning acceptance of “images from space”, and apparent analysis-free interpretations of them as, for example, “massive flows of charged particles” (no math required, just simple visual inspection), paired with avowals of the EU as science without even a hint of deep inconsistencies was … well, astonishing.

      Caveat: I’ve read only some of the material, and much of that that I’ve read not too deeply; perhaps these profound inconsistencies and incompatibilities are addressed in what I have not yet read.

      1. It is a guide for laymen, which i thought was apt for you. It seemed you had a lot of things wrong about EU that is why i pointed to the guide. This it notwithstanding that you could find fault(s) in what is being said ( i do to sometimes as i am not an EU lackey but an independent researcher). I am not sure why you want to deny that there exists a gravity based physics paradigm that is surely mostly dead by now due to plasma physics understandings, both mainstream and EU. I think NASA has made great strides in recognizing this and putting up these understanding in easy to read articles, they are based on new space probe data made possible by the space age. A good example is recognizing the electrified Jovian system.

        1. Again, Daniel, thank you for your recommendation. It is, for me, highly educational; I have learned a lot.

          “I am not sure why you want to deny that there exists a gravity based physics paradigm”. Hmm … I really do not understand what you mean; perhaps you could clarify please?

          I commented on a term in that site which seems to be important, “Gravity-centric”. Whoever wrote that seems to be ignorant of so many things in astronomy etc. For example, giant radio lobes were discovered in the 1950s, well before many readers of this post today were even born. Identification of its large-scale “electricity” (to use the EU term) nature followed soon after (synchrotron radiation; for those who are unfamiliar with these extraordinary objects, the biggest are, apparently, many Mpc end-to-end). So, the “gravity-centric” characterization may have had some validity in, say, 1950, but to assert that it applies to “[t]oday’s standard theories in astronomy” shows extraordinary ignorance (or worse). Why is such profound ignorance part of a (supposedly) general intro to the EU?

          1. Gravity based paradigm = accretion model, core fusion stars, black holes, dark matter, neutron stars, etc, it exists // Thank you for acknowledging some of the tenets of EU.

          2. “Gravity based paradigm = accretion model, core fusion stars, black holes, dark matter, neutron stars, etc,”

            I guess that’s your own, personal, take on “gravity-centric”. If you have the time and patience, I’d appreciate you walking me through how you get from what’s in the glossary to your take; myself, it looks like a description of a strong-force+gravity+EM paradigm (to use what I think is the EU way of approaching this).

            “it exists” If you say so. Myself, I think a more accurate characterization might be “contemporary astrophysics incorporates every aspect of contemporary physics, from particle physics and the Standard Model (which is totally different from the “Standard Model” referenced in TB) to plasmas to GR”

        2. Still got a few posts to catch up on; this is one.

          I’ve now finished reading all the material you suggested, Daniel.

          Here’s what I found:
          * the authors of the beginner’s guide and essential guide seem to have not been in touch, much less attempted to convey a coherent, consistent message
          * for example, the authors of the former make it quite clear that SR is “disproven”, yet in the latter it is critical to a great many of the points they make (albeit the connection is implicit rather than openly stated)
          * an example is Paul’s “EM force is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity”: the same WP page (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction) on fundamental interactions is quoted (via a screen shot, in Chapter 2), including the critical caveat “Both magnitude (“relative strength”) and “range”, as given in the table, are meaningful only within a rather complex theoretical framework” … that theoretical framework includes SR
          * aside from the grotesque ‘history’ in Chapter 1 and the gratuitous throw-aways about ‘gravity only model’ throughout, most of the material in the essential guide is more or less OK, not that much different from what you’d find in any standard textbook on plasma astrophysics (though the EU accounts are rather oversimplified, and seem to ignore quantum mechanics)
          * Paul will be dismayed to learn that “Evidence for Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma”, Peratt (1990), cited in Chapter 6, uses the Hubble redshift-distance relationship (consistent with GR), and it’s central to the conclusions (the authors of the guide seem unaware of this fact)
          * re this paper, here’s what it says in Chapter 10: “He found that the shape and rotational characteristics of spiral galaxies, including barred spirals, which are a very common form in space, arise naturally from the interplay of electromagnetic forces in large Birkeland currents” No, he didn’t. There are several, quite fatal, aspects of this which are just plain wrong (e.g. spiral galaxy rotation curves are ~the same for stars and the ISM)

          The biggest shortcomings, I think, show – once again – that whatever the EU paradigm is, it isn’t science.

          The first I might call the ‘looks like a duck’ fallacy, which is found in many chapters. For example, in Ch 7 “Filamentary structures of the type just described are common in space: examples include […] Filamentary structure has also been observed in the arrangement of clusters of galaxies.” And in Ch 6 “Filamentary structure is acknowledged by most astronomers to exist at all levels, from the solar system to galactic and intergalactic scales. The only area of disagreement between the Electric Model and the Gravity Model is whether these filaments are current-carrying structures, naturally following the laws of plasma electrodynamics, or …”

          It’s all well and good to point out similarity of structure, and in some cases the connection with currents is established; rather it’s that there seems to have been essentially no effort on the part of the authors to show that the similarity is necessarily universal. Such assumptions are in direct contradiction with what’s in the beginner’s guide.

          The second is more serious, and relates to the first. In the late 1980s and early 1990s Eric Lerner published a series of papers on the radio emission expected from just the sorts of “filaments_and_electric_currents in space” that the authors of the guide talk so much about (as far as I know, there’s nothing particularly different from what’s in Lerner’s papers than in dozens of plasma astrophysics ones; however, no one can say that his work is ‘gravity centric’).

          While it turned out that later empirical evidence is quite inconsistent with his conclusions, his work shows what sorts of radio signatures these extra-galactic current carrying filaments should have. As far as I know, no such have been discovered (radio lobes and jets are different). Odd that the authors of the EU guide seem to have been unaware of this (but hey Paul, you could download the radio data for yourself, and do your own analyses, right?).

          So?

          For me, the conclusion is that whatever the EU is, it is not science. Perhaps that will change in future, but I’m not holding my breath.

  58. I do not think squirming is a quality, but to each his own. Please be aware that was just the beginning of your own article, one of the first sentences i picked, i could go on for the entire article but i am not a masochist.

    1. I guess it goes both ways, Daniel.

      Just for fun, I found the official HIPPARCOS results, and downloaded Volume 3 (“Construction of the Hipparcos Catalogue”, link: http://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/532822/546213/vol3_all.pdf/f3710c41-a34c-42ce-8731-2eb95c1c26c7).

      As seems clear from the TB info set of webpages, general relativity cannot be used in any EU theory (per Paul), EU models (per those webpages), and is explicitly excluded from the EU paradigm (ditto). A corollary is that no data (observations) which includes GR in their production can be trusted; to be consistent, EU models must re-work the raw data to explicitly exclude GR.

      One of the TB pages is on “Distances in Space”, and explicitly mentions HIPPARCOS parallaxes. Although it doesn’t say so explicitly, it strongly implies that the determinations of parallax, by HIPPARCOS, are robust (within the stated errors).

      But do the HIPPARCOS have an in-built reliance on GR?

      Yes, they do. From p226 of the catalog: “The transformation from the isotropic coordinate direction to the natural direction took into account the light bending by the Sun”, which is a GR effect. And HIPPARCOS’ “successor”, GAIA (link: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Gaia_overview), which will produce far more accurate parallaxes, out to several (tens of) thousand pc, is even more reliant on taking into account the bending of light, by the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, the Earth, …

      I guess the authors of those TB pages weren’t particularly diligent, wouldn’t you say?

        1. In converting the raw HIPPARCOS data to parallaxes, the two, independent, teams both used a GR-based correction, for the bending of light by the Sun; they did not use “gravity”. According to the EU “essential guide”, both GR and SR are inconsistent with observational data, and “cannot be considered scientifically valid” (actually it quotes Allias saying this; it is also highly misleading, I’ll get to some of the, um, nonsense on that page later).

          I find the failure to point out that the HIPPARCOS parallaxes rely on GR, and at the same time stating that GR is inconsistent with observational data, to be borderline lying. But irrespective of why the authors failed to note this, it does make EU (theory, model, paradigm) rather less than science-based.

          1. My comment was in relation to the OP squirming, EU says there is E/M and gravity at work in the cosmos. But gravity does not equal GR,

  59. Daniel, how, in the EU, is gravity modeled? When those who work within the EU paradigm do research, using data from telescopes and space probes, how do they treat gravity?

    From what I’ve seen so far, not much different than they treat EM; i.e. by making up stories. In fact, one of the guides you pointed me to (“where’s the math?”) seems to be saying that little or no quantitative analyses, much less modeling, has been done: “Of course, mathematics will follow as a new paradigm unfolds. In fact highly capable mathematicians are now coming into the Thunderbolts Project, attracted to new opportunities to quantify our Electric Universe.” That was written over two years ago … yet there seems to be nothing from any of these ‘highly capable mathematicians’ (can you point to any publications by them?). Besides, as I have repeatedly said, plasma astrophysics seems to exactly what you EU fans want, but I have yet to find any publication in the last few years, with an avowedly EU paradigm approach, of the plasma astrophysics kind.

    Also, don’t you feel just a little bit uncomfortable about this? I mean, almost all the data/observations which the NASA Press Releases (which EU fans seem so fond of) are based on is heavily processed to get the images etc; that processing always involves lots of math, and the results cannot be fully understood unless you also understand the math-based modeling that is used.

    So, once again, I tentatively conclude that whatever the EU is, it is not science.

  60. Dr. Koberlein’s case against some key premises of the electric sun model is compelling. Also I agree with the commentariat that certain conflicts, like the EU theory adding nothing to spaceflight or GPS, seem very bad for the EU. That said, I am an EU apologist (lol) so I briefly offer two remarks. Please consider they comprise a short internet comment, not a term paper as some commenters require.

    First, a well known “debunker” of EU posts in this thread, and his “debunking” of Donald Scott’s book is surely something to which commenters refer when they say there exist “thousands” (!!!) of debunkings. For just one example, to prove I am not creating a red herring, on rational-wiki this first debunking of Scott’s book is one of the only arguments we get in an article that is mostly character judgments and name calling (maybe that will change, but as of this time I am offering a fair characterization of that article).

    What is missing from this dialectic is that Scott DID reply to that critique (and his critic replied in turn, and so on). I am NOT saying Scott succeeded in his reply, but really the dialectic ought to be: ‘this critique was made. This reply was made. This is why the critic thought the reply failed’. Instead, as far as I can tell, the mere existence of counterarguments entails no reply could ever be made. Taking that idea back to the post at hand, to just one of Dr. Koberlein’s points, the link to Svoboda and Gordan, the EU apologist might reply there are not enough detectors between ourselves and the sun (or elsewhere in the Universe) to test this hypothesis of changing flavors. Maybe that reply would fail and be ridiculed as well, but I am just saying how I think a productive dialectic might go.

    Second, in part due to said dialectic and (to be fair) also in part due to very real and good criticism like Dr. Koberlein raises, I personally believe there are some really cool ideas from the EU that will never be considered in any context, cosmological or otherwise. You might say ‘oh well…if overall it’s a false theory then who cares?’ But I think this is too bad. The idea that martian spherules can be approximated by in a lab is really cool to me. The idea of the overlap of various mythologies is really cool to me. Unfortunately, to most (not all) internet critics of EU, no curiosity or question can be formulated, no matter how many concessions it makes or how apologetic it is, without the sort of vitriol seen on this thread and others. The only acceptable viewpoint is to say the entire EU, and any thought connected to it, no matter how tangential, no matter how apologetic, ought to be thrown to wolves.

    In this last regard, I think EU apologists should really appreciate Dr. Koberlein’s post, since he sticks to facts and arguments and avoids that sort of hyperbole.

  61. whoops, in this last paragraph where I say “approximated by in a lab” I mean “approximated in a lab”.

    1. EU apologist: what has been published elsewhere is meaningful only if there’s a reference, wouldn’t you say? Where is this supposed chain of Scott rebuttals and counter-rebuttals published?

      “the EU apologist might reply there are not enough detectors between ourselves and the sun (or elsewhere in the Universe) to test this hypothesis of changing flavors. Maybe that reply would fail and be ridiculed as well, but I am just saying how I think a productive dialectic might go.”

      Yes, it would likely fail, and spectacularly so too. For example, there have been no in situ tests of Maxwell’s equations in the Sun’s photosphere (of the ‘in the lab’ kind), so in the EU paradigm, how do you know that EM rules there? Similarly, in EU propaganda, you will find the scalability of (some) plasma relationships at the heart of many an assertion. But such scalability has not been tested ‘in the lab’ at physical scales larger than ~10m, so how do EU fans know that they apply on scales of ~10 Mpc (say)?

      “I personally believe there are some really cool ideas from the EU that will never be considered in any context, cosmological or otherwise”

      Then why don’t you, yourself, pursue them? Why do they have to be associated with ‘the EU’? I think it’s accurate to say that the number of really cool ideas, from any source, vastly exceeds the number of people on the planet Earth. If so, how does one go about deciding which really cool idea to pursue?

      1. There is a section in the EU guide entitled “who disproved Einstein?” It is full of mis-information, cherry-picking, etc. Despite this, from a different page in the same section, the authors of “who disproved Einstein?” have failed spectacularly:

        “Scientific knowledge and the rules that govern it are inextricably bound to empirical evidence”.

        Before looking at this, I’d like to point to something that is incredibly common in material published by EU fans, an almost complete lack of references. Here’s an example:

        “The late Dr Tom Van Flandern, while he was on the US Naval Observatory team that developed and commissioned the GPS, used Newtonian mechanics and produced the same answers precisely. His equations were subsequently rejected and replaced by Einstein’s for no other reason than political expediency.”

        Really? How can anyone independently verify this story?

        With the possible exception of “Miller’s 1925-26 experimental results” there are no direct references on this webpage. This alone is not particularly troubling; however, combined with the astonishing stories told on this page, it seems obvious that the authors have, quite deliberately, ignored mountains of highly relevant empirical evidence.

        What empirical evidence?

        Almost all of that published, in the past ~nine decades, on empirical tests of GR! (I’ll talk about only that relevant to GR now, and only one aspect; it’s pretty much the same re SR too).

        The website Living Reviews in Relativity has dozens of documents, one of which is “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment”, by Clifford Will (link: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/). It has 454 references. Let’s see what Will has to say about this particular, um, EU comment:

        EU guide webpage: “In 1919, Arthur Eddington undertook to measure the bending of starlight around the Sun during an eclipse. Einstein’s theory predicted twice the bending that Newton’s theory did. Eddington’s measurements were at the limit of precision of his telescopes—his standard error was around 30%. His measurements ranged from half to twice Einstein’s prediction. Half supported Newton’s prediction. In what has come to be standard practice in many scientific endeavors, Eddington threw out the inconvenient data and proclaimed verification of Einstein’s prediction.”

        Here’s Will, in Section 4.1, “The deflection of light” (an excerpt only): “The prediction of the full bending of light by the Sun was one of the great successes of Einstein’s GR. Eddington’s confirmation of the bending of optical starlight observed during a solar eclipse in the first days following World War I helped make Einstein famous. However, the experiments of Eddington and his co-workers had only 30 percent accuracy (for a recent re-evaluation of Eddington’s conclusions, see [215]). Succeeding experiments were not much better: the results were scattered between one half and twice the Einstein value (see Figure 5*), and the accuracies were low. For a history of this period see [95].”

        And what is [215]? It’s “Testing relativity from the 1919 eclipse—a question of bias” (link: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/62/3/10.1063/1.3099578). Included among the references is a 1979 reanalysis of the the 1919 data.

        How accurate is the EU guide webpage summary? I’ll leave you to judge for yourself.

        Here’s something I find really awful: the EU guide webpage strongly implies that the only test of GR’s prediction of the deflection of light by the Sun is Eddington’s 1919 one. However, as Will makes clear, there have been many, many such tests subsequently:

        “However, the development of radio interferometery, and later of very-long-baseline radio interferometry (VLBI), produced greatly improved determinations of the deflection of light. […] A 2004 analysis of almost 2 million VLBI observations of 541 radio sources, made by 87 VLBI sites yielded … γ − 1 = (− 1.7 ± 4.5) × 10 −4 [363] […] Analysis of observations made by the Hipparcos optical astrometry satellite yielded a test at the level of 0.3 percent [165].”

        Surely no EU fan would deny that Will cites a huge wealth of empirical evidence. And that multiple, independent tests, done in many different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, are consistent with GR (in this particular regard), to a rather remarkable level of precision and accuracy?

        So why has even the faintest of hints of the existence of this empirical evidence omitted?

        Perhaps Daniel or Paul can answer? I’d be particularly interested to hear why they think this kind of appallingly bad scholarship is consistent with the EU paradigm being science. Also, were either of you even aware of Will’s papers before you read this comment of mine?

        1. Jean,

          I think you are being unduly diplomatic in the describing the “who disproved Einstein” document as an example of “appallingly bad scholarship”.

          This is blatant dishonesty and misinformation being peddled.

          The reference to the Hafele-Keating experiment goes down the same lines as the description for Eddington’s measurement of the gravitational bending of light, an exclusive focus on the original 1971 experiment at the exclusion of all other tests that have been subsequently performed at greater precision.

          Then there is the reference to Miller’s 1925-26 Michelson- Morley (M-M) experiment.
          What the author doesn’t tell you is that Miller also performed this test in 1921, 1923 and 1924, using the same mirror spacing in each case and obtained values that varied between 16 to 91% of the 1925-26 result which strongly indicates experimental error.

          Then there is the inconvenient truth that none of Miller’s contemporaries nor any subsequent M-M experiment has been able to reproduce Miller’s non-null result.

          Physicists in Germany have performed the most precise Michelson-Morley experiment to date (2009), confirming that the speed of light is the same in all directions. The experiment, which involves rotating two optical cavities, is about 10 times more precise than more recent experiments – and a hundred million times more precise than Michelson and Morley’s 1887 measurement.

          So once again we have an example of modern test results being ignored and the argument built entirely on an antiquated and clearly flawed 1925-26 test.

          There is an interesting psychology occurring in this document.
          The accusation of mainstream science throwing out “inconvenient” data is being mirrored in this document.
          This is an example of the psychology of projection.

          Even if there was a grain of truth associated with this document, it is a false dichotomy to associate the “flaws” in mainstream theory as a validation of “EU science”.
          Yet this seems to be main tactic used and confirms the view there is no such thing as EU science as there is no evidence to support it.

          The fact that EU science violates basic physics is another story.

          1. Hi sjastro,

            Yes, it does seem hard to avoid a conclusion that the authors of that particular EU guide page knew what they were doing when they chose to pick that particular cherry.

            I googled Allais; yes he was (he died in 2010) respected, and yes he did win a Nobel. However, it was in 1988, and for economics. The WP page on him says, re the physics experiments he did, “Over the years, a number of pendulum experiments were performed by scientists around the world to test his findings. However, the results were mixed.”, but the citation link seems dead. ADS returns three hits for papers by Allais, all published in Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences (in French), and all behind a paywall. The most recent, “L’origine des régularités constatées dans les observations interférométriques de Dayton C. Miller 1925–1926 : variations de température ou anisotropie de l’espace” has this abstract in English:

            “It is utterly impossible to consider that the regularities displayed in Miller’s interferometric observations can be explained by temperature effects. As a result the light velocity is not invariant whatever its direction and consequently the principle of invariance of light velocity on which fundamentally does rest the special theory of relativity is invalidated by the observation data.”

            Perhaps it’s the translation, but the “as a result” sentence seems particularly odd; was Allais unaware of the many later Miller-like interferometric (etc) experiments on the isotropy of the c (there are no references listed in ADS, and I can’t check the paper itself to see if has any)?

          2. Jean,

            The source for the information on Miller comes from my old undergraduate textbook on Special Relativity, “Introduction to Special Relativity” by Robert Resnick.

            The book refers to a 1955 paper on Miller.
            While the article is behind a paywall, the abstract says it all.

            “For nearly thirty years the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment obtained by Dayton C. Miller on Mount Wilson have stood at variance with all other trials of this experiment. As interest in Miller’s results has continued to the present time, and since the original data sheets are available to the present writers, it has seemed appropriate that the observations be subjected to a new analysis. It is now shown that the small periodic fringe displacements found by Miller are due in part to statistical fluctuations in the readings of the fringe positions in a very difficult experiment. The remaining systematic effects are ascribed to local temperature conditions. These were much more troublesome at Mount Wilson than those encountered by experimenters elsewhere, including Miller himself in his work done at Case in Cleveland. As interpreted in the present study, Miller’s extensive Mount Wilson data contain no effect of the kind predicted by the aether theory and, within the limitations imposed by local disturbances, are entirely consistent with a null result at all epochs during a year.”

            http://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.27.167

            I’ve noticed in my discussions with EU enthusiasts over the years, when contradictory evidence is presented to them the denial switch is turned on and the evidence seems not to register.

            I’m sure this thread will end in the same way……

        2. What is the cause of light bending? Can we prove empirically what the cause is? I think we can if we accept that the cause of any bending is due to refraction. Ie it is a solar limb phenomena, light bending only occurs when light passes through the plasma of the solar limb. No gravity needed.

          I think EU criticizes “gravity bending” in their guide because they believe there is a better answer out there. It is the task of physics to find out.

          I would trust the report of Einstein not being quite accurate with his bending predictions. I would not trust later refinements to data, but hey maybe that is just me being ignorant of all this “evidence”.

          The challenge: How is light physically affected by gravity?

          Regards,
          Daniel

          1. Daniel, this is not the place for me to try to explain how ‘light bending’ follows from GR, nor to try to give you a ‘physical’ explanation. There are, for example, several excellent posts by Brian on this topic; I recommend that you start with those.

            “I think we can if we accept that the cause of any bending is due to refraction. Ie it is a solar limb phenomena, light bending only occurs when light passes through the plasma of the solar limb.”

            There are two obvious reasons why this is inconsistent with empirical evidence:
            * refraction is chromatic, how much bending there is depends on the wavelength of light (including radio); the ‘light bending’ by the Sun has been shown to be the same, for example, for light (per HIPPARCOS, for example) and radio (for the millions of VBLI observations), which is consistent with GR
            * the bending has been observed across the entire sky, not just near the Sun’s limb
            (both these are explained, in considerable detail, in the Will paper)

            “It is the task of physics to find out” Actually, it is the task of EU fans to do so. From what I’ve read (in TB), very few EU fans seem to have even the most superficial understanding of GR, refraction, EM, or anything much about physics. Perhaps when they do have a better understanding, they may be able to start doing some real science, and work on an alternative to GR re ‘light bending’ (I note that two TB members who did seem to know about GR – David and querious – seem to have been banned).

          2. Paul, or should I say comingfrom, I see that in TB you wrote “Why not have teams using independent theories?”, in regard to the HIPPARCOS data reduction.

            This is a good question, one that I’m sure EU fans will be delighted to know that they can can answer by themselves: just take the raw HIPPARCOS data and analyze it, independently, using as many independent theories as they like! One such independent theory could be what Daniel proposes (refraction due to the Sun’s plasma atmosphere), but it could be anything, even something wildly incompatible with ‘EU theory’.

            “A new reduction of the raw Hipparcos data”, by Floor van Leeuwen and Elena Fantino (2005; link to arXiv version: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0505432) gives a reason why you (and Daniel) could do this yourself: ordinary desktop computers were already powerful enough, in 2005, to do the reduction in a matter of just weeks, compared with the years needed by the original teams, in the late 1990s. It may even be that your smartphone, if it’s the latest model, has the oomph to do the reduction in perhaps just days.

            With so much free data, powerful (and free) software, laptops and desktops vastly more powerful than the supercomputer Peratt used in the 1980s, millions (?) of EU fans, and so much of astronomy and astrophysics those fans are upset about, why hasn’t this happened (apparently)?

            If so many EU fans are so clever as to see the (to them) obvious flaws in contemporary astronomy and astrophysics, why do so many, like Daniel, seem to insist that it MUST be professionals who do the work to address this (supposed) bias?

            Paul, Daniel, EU apologist, why are you not doing this work yourselves?

          3. “The challenge: How is light physically affected by gravity?”

            This question by Daniel got me thinking, in TB there seem to be hundreds (more?) of posts expressing a sort of angst, an intuitive feeling that contemporary physics involves metamathematical notions that have no connection to the real, physical world. And part of the attraction of ‘the EU paradigm’ is, as Paul’s comments here clearly show, the existence of a story (or paradigm) in which physical reality can be grasped intuitively, without the need for things that seem to offend EU fans’ intuitive sensibilities (and, to some extent, what they see as logic). As I see it, the beginner’s guide (thanks again for recommending this Daniel) articulates some of this (though the essential guide mostly does not).

            In this comment I will take a look at the part of physics which EU fans seem quite happy to accept, electromagnetism (“EM” for short).

            In classical physics, before relativity or quantum mechanics, EM and gravity are very similar; both involve ‘action at a distance’, forces which are felt instantaneously, and no ‘physical’ explanation for their effects, other than ‘gravity is a property of matter’ and ‘EM is a property of charge’ (or words to that effect).

            Maxwell’s equations provide a remarkable description of EM, even if what they mean, physically, is not so easy to grasp (what, physically, is an ‘electric field’? how does it differ from a ‘gravitational field’? how can an electron in a plasmasphere near one part of glass sphere ‘feel’ the charge of an oxygen ion opposite it?). Whatever; to EU fans, Maxwell’s equations are not mysterious (apparently), even if Newton’s law of universal gravitation is (example: EU fans seem to really hate black holes, yet such objects are a prediction – a highly overused term in the EUverse – of Newton’s law!).

            That even the ‘official’ EU guide does not grasp what Maxwell’s equations mean can be seen in its rejection of SR … Maxwell’s equations demand that light travels at a fixed speed (c) (in a vacuum), no matter who does the observing; the only ‘out’ – the existence of an aether – has been shown, to an astonishing degree of accuracy, to be inconsistent with empirical evidence (despite the denial in the EU guide).

            If it’s hard to intuitively grasp what happens to light, ‘in GR’, then quantum mechanics (QM) is totally off the scale of ‘intuitively impossible to grasp’.

            Yet EU fans need QM, for EM to make sense!

            Consider a hydrogen atom: a positively charged proton with an electron ‘orbiting’ it. By Maxwell’s equations this is unstable, the electron is accelerating, so radiating light (I’ll use light as a shorthand for electromagnetic radiation), as the EU essential guide helpfully points out. Its orbit will ‘decay’ and the electron collide with the proton is an unbelievably short time. Yet hydrogen atoms are quite stable; they don’t almost instantly disappear in a flash of light!

            QM is a theory (per EU parlance) which explains – among other things – why atoms (and ions) exist as stable entities, contra Maxwell’s equations. So, per Daniel, how do electrons, physically, remain ‘in orbit’? What intuitively satisfying explanation is there? I rather doubt that either Paul or Daniel, or any EU fan, can give one.

            It gets worse, much worse.

            The QM version of Maxwell’s equations is called Quantum Electrodynamics, QED for short. It has been exhaustively tested against empirical reality (evidence); it is consistent with empirical evidence to 14 significant places (i.e. 1 part in 100 trillion); there is not even a hint that physical reality behaves differently! And SR is an essential component of QED; you could say that tests of QED are also tests of SR (a fact which the authors of the EU guides seem quite unaware of).

            Let’s ask an EM equivalent question to Daniel’s: “The challenge: How is light physically affected by EM?” Using QED you can get some answers (‘predictions’), and as far as I know there’s no empirical evidence inconsistent with those answers. I suspect, but do not know, that EU fans are not the least bit (intuitively) upset by those answers. Despite the fact that such answers are surely impossible to grasp, intuitively!

            What’s going on here, do you think?

          4. The challenge: How is light physically affected by gravity?

            I’ll give you two answers as to why light IS OBSERVED to bend.

            (1) Light has the property of taking the shortest path in spacetime.

            In flat spacetime the light path is a straight line. This was known to the ancient Greeks.
            In spherical spacetime the light path is an arc.
            Spacetime in the vicinity of massive objects has a spherical curvature hence a light path passing through this spacetime is bent.

            (2) One can explain the bending of light using Einstein’s equivalence principle.

            Using Einstein’s elevator thought experiment, a photon is shot through the hole in the wall of an elevator accelerating upwards at g metres/second/second. The photon takes a very short (but finite time) to strike the opposite wall. In this short period of time the elevator has moved upwards a small amount and the photon will strike the opposite wall at a slightly lower point.
            To an observer inside the elevator the photon path appears to be curved albeit a very small magnitude.

            Using the equivalence principle for the observer inside an elevator, there is no difference between an elevator accelerating upwards at g metres/second/second and a stationary elevator in a uniform gravitational field where objects are accelerated downwards at -g metres/second/second.

            Hence gravity bends light.

            Note that spacetime curvature and Einstein’s equivalence principle are supported by observation and experiment.

  62. Before I tidy up the last loose end (NGC 7319, 3C405, Arp, and anomalous redshifts), I’d like to make a comment about science and amateurs, and draw a contrast with EU fans.

    Many readers of Brian’s blog will know of Galaxy Zoo (GZ; link http://www.galaxyzoo.org/), an online crowd-sourcing or citizen science project, begun nearly a decade ago now. Quite a few, related, Zooniverse (link: https://www.zooniverse.org/) projects are now active, and several very successful ones dormant or retired. ~80 papers have so far been published, based on the ‘clicks’ of zooites, in the “Space” fields (link: https://www.zooniverse.org/about/publications). Several of these have ordinary folk – like me or Paul – as coauthors, and there are some Planet Hunters papers whose lead author is an amateur. For a far larger number of people, participation in these projects has given them a much deeper understanding of astronomy, and even astrophysics (lots of online discussion involves very good questions, with excellent answers from fellow citizen scientists and professionals).

    The number of people who have been involved in these online astronomy-related citizen science projects is, if EU propaganda is to believed, ~comparable to the EU fan base. Odd that nothing remotely comparable to the scientific results from various Zooniverse Space projects seems to have been produced by this huge EU fan base.

    I am one such zooite. I have been spending up to many hours each day ‘clicking to classify’, and more. Some years ago I became moderator (actually editor) of the ‘Object of the Day’ section of the GZ forum (now frozen; link http://www.galaxyzooforum.org/index.php?board=5.0), and I even wrote a post entitled “Does Controversy Sell? Let’s See: Arp Was Right!” (link: http://www.galaxyzooforum.org/index.php?topic=280426). Recently I have been mostly involved with Radio Galaxy Zoo, and even taught myself Python, and wrote code to produce radio contour overlay images. A fellow zooite found a very interesting radio source, powerful jets coming from the nucleus of an edge-on spiral, and I wrote it up in the Daily Zooniverse blog (“Rare Spiral Galaxy with Radio Jets”; link: http://daily.zooniverse.org/2015/11/27/rare-spiral-galaxy-with-radio-jets/).

    My experience with these citizen science projects has given me some insight into what science is (at least astronomy and astrophysics); with Daniel’s and Paul’s help I now also have some insight into the ‘EU paradigm’. My impression is that ‘the EU’ is nothing like astronomy/astrophysics, at almost every level. Perhaps the most stark is the apparent disconnect between the frequent “empirical evidence is king!” statements and the apparent, almost total, lack of adherence to that precept. Instead there is rampant, wild speculation, unsubstantiated accusations of bias/conspiracy/fudging/(and worse), colorful story-telling, intuition dominating reason, … but almost nothing resembling science.

    But perhaps I am just ignorant; perhaps there have been some good, original, scientific results from the work of EU fans (and ‘electrical theorists’) in the last ~decade. If so, I’d be more than happy to admit I’m wrong. What say you, Paul? Daniel? EU apologist?

  63. You dodged my challenge/ EU is a paradigm, a perspective on the cosmos, there are indeed great opportunities to discover electrical working in space, i gave a good example of electrical discoveries by NASA of the Jovian system. Also you ask for the last decade but the concepts and ideas go back a hundred years, that is also when this world started to use electricity on a global scale, we are like children in understanding its magnificent force, Tesla knew it intuitively and is still without peer to this day, so excuse me when i do not take your ramblings very serious. Regards, Daniel Archer, Natural Philosopher from The Netherlands.

    1. “You dodged my challenge”

      Let’s talk about dodging … (a selection)

      “What’s going on here, do you think?” (In a nutshell, why do you reject GR but accept QED?)

      “How do electrons, physically, remain ‘in orbit’? What intuitively satisfying explanation is there?”

      “Why do you, Daniel, seem to insist that it MUST be professionals who do the work to address this (supposed) bias?”

      “Daniel, why are you not doing this work yourself?” (independently analyzing the HIPPARCOS data)

      “So why has even the faintest of hints of the existence of this empirical evidence been omitted?” (re empirical evidence consistent with GR and SR, in the EU guides)

      “How can anyone independently verify this story?” (re Van Flandern’s tall tale)

      “Don’t you feel just a little bit uncomfortable about this?” (re info in NASA PRs being based on processing that incorporates SR)

      Daniel, why have you apparently not even attempted to answer any of these questions (and many more like them)?

      Turning to your post: “EU is a paradigm, a perspective on the cosmos, there are indeed great opportunities to discover electrical working in space”

      OK, so how is plasma astrophysics and space science (the study of the inter-planetary medium, its interactions with planets/moons/comets/etc, and so on) NOT part of the this paradigm?

      We know it isn’t, because you, like almost all EU fans (not to mention the EU guides and forum) never seem to mention it. Look at the rejection of the published results from the Rosetta mission, to take just one example (source: TB forum).

      Regards, JT, a citizen scientist

    2. “Why have theories at all, these teams should just collect data and show us the result before any theory is applied.” (source: TB forum).

      Let’s see how this would work, for HIPPARCOS.

      Start with obtaining the data: the satellite was in orbit around the Earth, and communicated its raw data via a radio link. To know where to point the Earth-bound radio antenna, the operators had to know where the satellite was, in the sky, at a particular time. To do that they used a theory (you know which one, or ones, don’t you dear reader).

      Next, the radio frequencies used to communicate had to be determined; another theory.

      The ‘signals’ from the back of the detector in the satellite had to be converted to bits, stored, and transmitted on command; lots of theories involved in this process.

      A successful transmission of the data involved quite a bit of coding; heavy math theories essential for this.

      So, you can’t ‘collect data’ without a theory.

      Raw, downloaded, data in hand, how to work out parallaxes and proper motions?

      The ‘attitude’ of the satellite had to be determined (this is, sorta, where the detectors are pointed, in the sky); that involves developing a detailed model, using telemetry data, estimates of the satellite’s orbital position, and much more. Lots of theories go into developing that detailed model.

      And so on.

      Along this chain, ending up with estimated parallaxes and proper motions (among other things), hundreds of theories were involved. A ‘correction’ for the bending of light by the Sun was used by both teams (one team also applied a correction for the bending of light by the Earth, but it was so small as to be completely ‘buried in the noise’), just one of many ways the data were processed.

      There is a lot of raw data (i.e. what the satellite transmitted, plus key metadata); at the time it took a lot of storage; today a fast internet connection can likely transmit it in a matter of minutes.

      Direct question for Daniel and Paul: which of the hundreds of theories do you think the HIPPARCOS teams should not have applied, in their analysis of the data, and why?

      Question for any reader: what effect would not applying the GR correction (for bending of light by the Sun) have on the parallax and proper motion estimates, of the stars in the HIP catalog? Keep in mind that the math to describe this correction (irrespective of any theory) is well-established, and consistent with a vast amount of empirical evidence (e.g. the VLBI data I mentioned Will summarizes).

      1. I am not sure you know what you are talking about with HIPPARCOS, it is a simple parallax measurement. It is not exact distance measurement but it is said it is the best we got currently (in % accuracy) // I do not answer questions that people do not want the answer to, but i will say that yes, there can be exact physical answers to the conundrums of nature.

          1. “the questions are also pretty stupid” I fully accept that what you consider to be “pretty stupid” is your own, personal, opinion. But why not say WHY you think that? To not do that seems to me – and likely to a great many readers – that you’re just dodging.

            “and they put words in my mouth, things i never said nor meant.”

            That may be true for some, but certainly not all. Here are four examples:

            “What’s going on here, do you think?” (In a nutshell, why do you reject GR but accept QED?)

            “Why do you, Daniel, seem to insist that it MUST be professionals who do the work to address this (supposed) bias?” (in the data reductions done by the two, independent, HIPPARCOS teams)

            “Daniel, why are you not doing this work yourself?” (independently analyzing the HIPPARCOS data)

            “OK, so how is plasma astrophysics and space science (the study of the inter-planetary medium, its interactions with planets/moons/comets/etc, and so on) NOT part of the this [EU] paradigm?”

            Shall I quote your exact words, in earlier posts, to show that these questions directly address exactly what you said?

            It’s true you may not have meant what you said, but if so why pass up the opportunity to clarify, and to say what you actually meant?

          1. “As usual, these self styled experts have no idea what they are talking about.

            The distance is measured by comparing the “near” stars with “extremely far” stars to determine a paralax movement. These comparisons are over a section of sky less than 1 degree (basically the amount of stars occupying about the same area of a thumb nail held at arms length). Although they could be relativistically bent by the sun it’s impossible to tell because all objects in the field would be bent by the same amount.” (source: TB)

            Daniel, perhaps you’d like to invite Aardwolf to repeat this nonsense here? He seems to have essentially zero understanding of how HIPPARCOS worked (not to put too fine a point on it, he seems grossly ignorant).

            But hey! Perhaps he’s read all the HIPPARCOS papers, and can show us – in detail – that “these comparisons are over a section of sky less than 1 degree” is what HIPPARCOS did?

            Should be an interesting discussion …

          2. Hi Aardwolf,

            Your quote from the HIPPARCOS website is correct.

            However, you wrote “The distance is measured by comparing the “near” stars with “extremely far” stars to determine a paralax movement. These comparisons are over a section of sky less than 1 degree”. This is quite wrong. For example, there is no “comparing the “near” stars with “extremely far” stars” in HIPPARCOS; rather the time that a star crosses the detector is recorded (this is, of course, somewhat of an oversimplification). Over the life of the mission, the same star will have been detected many times (several hundred, typically), over a considerable range of angular distances from the Sun. The data reduction recovers each star’s crossings, and the time of the crossings is used – together with the estimated ‘attitude’ of the satellite (roughly, how it is oriented), and its position in its orbit – to estimate the star’s many (RA, Dec) coordinates (another simplification). Why ‘many’? Because many stars have both parallax and proper motion, for example.

            This is described in more detail on the “Data Reductions” HIPPARCOS page (link: http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/data-reductions), and in even more detail in “The NDAC HIPPARCOS data analysis consortium – Overview of the reduction methods” (link: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A%26A…258…18L) and “The FAST HIPPARCOS Data Reduction Consortium: Overview of the Adopted Reduction Software” (link: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A%26A…258….7K), and the many other HIPPARCOS papers.

          3. Jean, you wrote “For example, there is no “comparing the “near” stars with “extremely far” stars” in HIPPARCOS”

            http://www.esa.int/Education/Teachers_Corner/Science_ESA_Episode_6_Charting_the_Galaxy_-_from_Hipparcos_to_Gaia

            03:40

            “If the position of a star on the celestial sphere is observed over a period of one year, as the Earth orbits the Sun, the closest stars will appear to move against fixed, MORE DISTANT BACKGROUND STARS. This is the parallax; it is the only direct way to measure distances to celestial objects.”

            Hipparcos = High precision PARALLAX collecting satellite

            Jean, are the ESA lying about their methods?

          4. Hi Aardwolf,

            I think you have taken Rebecca Barnes’ words out of context; your quote is a simplified explanation of the term “parallax”; it is not a description of how HIPPARCOS worked, nor how parallaxes were estimated by the HIPPARCOS teams.

            Also, you missed a key part: “If the position of a star ON THE CELESTIAL SPHERE is observed …”; what HIPPARCOS did was measure the apparent position of a large number of stars on the celestial sphere, and use those positions to estimate parallax and proper motion (there is a step in the HIPPARCOS data reduction, near the end, where they tie their ‘celestial sphere’ to one of the standards, ICRF from memory; ICRF itself is tied to extremely distant sources (not stars)).

            You write, “are the ESA lying about their methods?”

            If you want a one-word answer from me, it would be a “no”; a slightly longer answer would be “the question is ill-posed; it doesn’t make a lot of sense”.

            To understand how HIPPARCOS worked, you need to refer to primary sources, the material published by the HIPPARCOS teams themselves, preferably in peer-reviewed journals. This primary source material is extensive, and free; a Science@ESA video is not a primary source. The primary sources describe – in extreme detail – how the satellite was designed, how it obtained data, how that data was transmitted to Earth, how it was analyzed, and how estimated parallaxes and proper motions were calculated from the data (along with a great deal else).

            I would be happy to help you understand any of these, but would suggest we use a different forum than comments to Brian’s blog. However, I am not at all interested in discussing secondary sources.

        1. “I am not sure you know what you are talking about with HIPPARCOS, it is a simple parallax measurement.”

          Then I’m sure you’ll have no difficulty demonstrating exactly that.

          Please explain, carefully and clearly, how HIPPARCOS turned the raw data into parallax measurements.

          “I do not answer questions that people do not want the answer to”

          Really? And how do you, Daniel, know what questions I want the answers to? Are you like, Paul, able to read my mind?

        2. PS If you want to know how, in fact, the raw HIPPARCOS data were analyzed to produce estimates of parallax and proper motion, why not contact Dr Floor van Leeuwen yourself? As you surely know, he is extremely familiar with the mission and reduction of the data coming from the satellite. Like most academics, he likely would welcome a genuine inquiry from a ‘member of the public’ about his life’s work.

        3. Daniel Archer wrote: “I am pretty sure it does not matter what i answer for you to keep rambling on.”

          And I am pretty sure you are wrong (except re ‘rambling’; I try very hard not to). And I should know, because it’s my brain.

          But then you, Daniel Archer, chose to write here, in the comments in Brian’s website, about a post he wrote (“Testing the Electric Universe”). So what you answer is likely of considerable interest to all the (hundreds? thousands? millions?) of people who will read your comments.

          For the record: I am pretty much done posting here (there are one or two loose ends I need to tidy up). However, as long as you, Daniel, continue to respond to what I – and others – post here I will continue to write comments.

          1. I am still waiting on some rectification of that second sentence of the OP article, it misrepresents EU, and that is where i entered. Y’all diddied with GR which i never mentioned. I did not want to go through the whole article and label every mistake (as i said), So? Can the mistake be acknowledged?

          2. Author

            I addressed this the first time you brought it up. As a basic summary of EU, it’s not wrong. My original statement about EU was that it claims “much of the astronomical phenomena observed in the universe is driven by electrical interactions rather than gravitational ones.” Not ALL interactions, and not that EU ignores gravity completely. Your stated correction was “EU supposes both are present, gravity and E/M.” Fine. “The paradigm is to look more to E/M interactions and to study it and not to ignore it.” The “and not ignore it.” Is an interesting statement, because it implicitly accuses standard astrophysics as ignoring EM, which is a lie. So, when are you going to admit that your implication about astrophysics is a lie?

          3. Your grasp of the English language is pretty poor Brian // rather than is an exclusion; i explained EU does include gravity, that is all. So are you going to admit your mistake? or continue this squirming…

  64. Jean Tate,

    First, regarding your request for that dialogue, If you type “Bridgman reply to Don Scott” into Google you will get all of the replies going both ways. Importantly, my only claim was the replies and counter-replies exist, not that Scott was successful in his defense. In fact, Bridgman may well have slam dunked on not only Scott but on the entire EU, for all eternity, with his comments. For my part I think he (Bridgman) does make some very compelling arguments. But I hope that Google search will point you toward the discussion I mentioned. Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with that exchange since you were the one who made the comment about “thousands” of debunkings on “hundreds” of websites. Bridgman’s debunking in particular was widely read, so I guess that wasn’t one of the “thousands” to which you were referring.

    Second, regarding my skepticism there are not the relevant neutrino detectors between the sun and the earth (or elsewhere), that you call a “spectacular” failure…your reasoning for my skepticism being a spectacular failure was not, as far as I could tell, actually pointing out why we don’t need the relevant detectors. Instead, as far as I can tell, you offer a general and unrelated criticism of the EU: that certain experiments and theories may not be scalable. I agree with you about this being a problem! But it is hard to see how it specifically applies to my “spectacular” failure. Rather, it appears to me your comments are a general criticism, albeit a good one, of EU, but have nothing to do with neutrino detectors.

    Third, regarding other comments, I suppose you are right, and I can pursue some of these ideas without any relation to the EU. I suppose that is a fair point and maybe I will, in the future. As far as your asking why we don’t do the leg work for the EU theory, I guess I don’t believe this is an honest request. For example, you introduce your offer with “if you are so clever” but nothing in any part of this comment, or my first comment, implies that I am clever or think I am clever. On the contrary, I made pains to laugh about how I was an EU apologist in spite of strong counterarguments deployed by Dr. Koberlein. But that said, even if that were an honest request of yours, and even if you would admit you are wrong if the three of us got together and crunched that data, we are probably not going to crunch it over Christmas break so I suppose we will have to do without it. But I actually think the general character of your offer, that people should put skin in the game and crunch the data themselves, is actually quite good.

    1. Thanks, EU apologist.

      “If you type “Bridgman reply to Don Scott” into Google you will get all of the replies going both ways” I found (links only):
      http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/03/donald-scott-of-electric-sky-presents.html
      http://electric-cosmos.org/RebutTB.pdf
      … and that’s it (for direct sources, i.e. written by either Bridgman or Scott).

      But now that I know it’s a Bridgman-Scott exchange you were referring to (and not, say, a Thompson-Scott one), I will ask Tom (Bridgman) to drop by and provide further detail (you know he has already commented on Brian’s post, right?)

      “your reasoning for my skepticism being a spectacular failure was not, as far as I could tell, actually pointing out why we don’t need the relevant detectors. Instead, as far as I can tell, you offer a general and unrelated criticism of the EU: that certain experiments and theories may not be scalable”

      Sorry, I was rather too general. To be specific: astrophysics has at its foundation a core assumption: that the ‘laws of physics’ (I’ll expand on this if it’s unclear) are the same everywhere (and everywhen). ‘Laws of physics’ we test in our Earth-bound labs apply throughout the universe; that sort of thing. Whatever the EU is, it has the same core assumption.

      Let’s look again at your original suggestion: “there are not enough detectors between ourselves and the sun (or elsewhere in the Universe) to test this hypothesis of changing flavors”. A couple of reasonable questions on this might be something like “how many detectors would be enough?” and “where should these detectors be placed?” Suppose that such detectors were buried a few km below the surfaces of Venus and Mercury, and also Mars and Titan (to see what happens further out as well as further in). Suppose the data from these detectors were fully consistent with our models of neutrino production by the Sun, and of flavor changing.

      Would Scott (or a future EU apologist) be satisfied with this? I think not.

      And that gets to the heart of the difference between science (astrophysics in this case) and non-science: the best you can do in science is something like ’empirical evidence is consistent with theory (or model)’. The more independent tests (types of empirical evidence), the better; the more precise the consistency (crudely, prediction matches observation to X significant figures), the better. And so on.

      Besides, neutrino flavor changing has been subject to a wide range of tests, involving not only neutrinos from the Sun but those from nuclear reactors and cosmic rays. Neutrinos coming ‘straight’ from the Sun and those which pass through the whole Earth (ditto re cosmic rays). Neutrinos which arrive when the Earth is near aphelion and near perihelion. And so on. As far as I know, all the results are consistent with *quantitative* theories of neutrino flavors and their changes.

      I hope that clears things up re your second point.

      “As far as your asking why we don’t do the leg work for the EU theory, I guess I don’t believe this is an honest request.” Snarky comment about ‘clever’ aside, yes, it was an honest request. Scientists are human beings, no different from you or I. Yes, they (almost all) have spent a good decade learning, both generally and specifically (their chosen field of science); but you and I can also spend a decade or so learning. Yes, some scientists are clever, brilliant even; but ~50% of them are not any brighter than you or I. Etc.

      There’s a ‘back story’: when I followed Paul’s and Daniel’s recommendations re learning about ‘the EU’ (i.e. read TB), I was truly shocked to find that almost no one there seemed to have the slightest interest in doing any work themselves! Like Daniel (“It is the task of physics to find out”), they almost all seem to think it’s up to ‘scientists’ to do all the work. Now laziness I can understand; what really shocked me was just how apparently ignorant so many EU fans seemed to be, even concerning the material that is (supposedly) closest to their hearts!! Worse; ignorance can be overcome … but very few EU fans seemed at all interested in a deeper understanding of, well, anything!!! (caveat: yes, there are some exceptions, and if BecomingTesla were to join this discussion, it’d be really cool. Ditto querious and David.)

      “that people should put skin in the game and crunch the data themselves” yes, that’d be marvelous. But to be honest, I’d be happy if EU fans could start by citing primary sources, rather than (almost exclusively) PRs, YT videos (gah!), etc.

      1. PS, for the record, my ‘clever’ comment is this (in full):

        “If so many EU fans are so clever as to see the (to them) obvious flaws in contemporary astronomy and astrophysics, why do so many, like Daniel, seem to insist that it MUST be professionals who do the work to address this (supposed) bias?

        Paul, Daniel, EU apologist, why are you not doing this work yourselves?”

        EU apologist is right that I jumped the gun in implying that he seems to insist that it must be professionals who do the work to address the supposed bias; as far as I know, he did not make any such demand.

        And it seems possible, even likely, that EU apologist has rather asked questions than seen flaws in contemporary astronomy and astrophysics that are obvious to him (unlike both Daniel and Paul).

        So, I should have been more careful to distinguish EU apologist from Daniel and Paul, and make my question (“why are you not doing this work yourselves?”) more clearly distinct from the preceding para. Thanks for the feedback, EU apologist.

  65. Daniel, you wrote: “I am still waiting on some rectification of that second sentence of the OP article, it misrepresents EU, and that is where i entered. Y’all diddied with GR which i never mentioned. I did not want to go through the whole article and label every mistake (as i said), So? Can the mistake be acknowledged?”

    Here’s the second sentence in the OP article: “The basic claim of the Electric Universe model is that much of the astronomical phenomena observed in the universe is driven by electrical interactions rather than gravitational ones.”

    You said that is WRONG (“EU supposes both are present, gravity and E/M. The paradigm is to look more to E/M interactions and to study it and not to ignore it.”)

    It seems you may have misunderstood what Brian wrote. For example, his sentence does not say the EU ignores gravity, and I don’t know how you infer that it says otherwise. Then there’s “driven by”. To me that’s pretty much consistent with what you wrote (“to look more to E/M interactions”).

    “Y’all diddied with GR which i never mentioned”

    Really?

    True, you said “Gravity does not equal GR” (twice in fact), so you certainly mentioned it.

    Also, “I think EU criticizes “gravity bending” in their guide because they believe there is a better answer out there”, which is an indirect mention of GR (the EU pages you referred me to certainly mention GR in connection with “gravity bending”).

    And “Gravity based paradigm = accretion model, core fusion stars, black holes, dark matter, neutron stars, etc, it exists”. True, you did not write the letters “GR”; true, you may have been attempting to summarize what others wrote or thought (that’s a bit of a stretch). However, it’s really hard to avoid concluding that in writing “black holes” you were referring to something completely unrelated to GR. But hey, I make mistakes; perhaps this is one.

    Why don’t you clarify what you wrote? Both with the reference to black holes, and what you actually mean – in some detail – when you write “gravity”?

    To make this crystal clear, what do you, Daniel Archer, mean when you use the word “gravity”?

    1. PS I note that Brian replied to your post, and said pretty much what I said (albeit with the addition of asking you to retract what he thinks is a lie in your statement).

  66. Daniel Archer wrote “How is light physically affected by gravity?”

    Both Brian and sjastro have had a go at answering your question, That you are asking again seems to suggest that you did not accept what they wrote, or perhaps did not understand it.

    I will have a go. And I’ll try to do so with “Natural Philosophy” in mind.

    First, though, let’s have some definitions.

    By “light” I take you to mean electromagnetic radiation, gamma rays, x-rays, UV, visible light, IR, microwaves, radio waves. If you do not mean that, please correct me.

    I do not know what you mean by “gravity”, and will not attempt to try to guess.

    Rather I will look at how light behaves ‘in the presence’ of matter (i.e. that which has the property ‘mass’). In an ideal case, this means the behavior of light in a vacuum but ‘near’ some matter.

    “physically affected by”: I have no idea what you mean by this Daniel, and will not try to guess.

    Rather I will look at empirical evidence, experiments done to look at how light behaves in the presence of matter.

    First, Pound-Rebka type experiments: as light moves away from a mass, its apparent energy (or equivalently, its wavelength) decreases. This is called ‘gravitational redshift’, and from astronomical observations (e.g. those by the Hubble of Sirius B), it seems to apply elsewhere in the universe too (not just in earth-bound labs). If you’d like some references, please ask.

    Second, “light bending”: as light passes near a mass, its apparent trajectory is altered, it does not seem to move in a straight line. This was first tested (as far as I know) by Eddington, during the solar eclipse of 1919, where the light of distant stars seemed to be bent by the Sun. This effect has been observed thousands of times since then. Not only bending by the mass that is the Sun, but also by Jupiter, stars (‘microlensing’, a technique that has led to the discovery of several exoplanets), galaxies, and galaxy clusters (the ‘gravitational lensing’ per Brian’s article). And when the GAIA mission results are published, there will also be hard empirical evidence for ‘light bending’ by the Earth, Mars, Saturn, … perhaps even the Moon.

    So, there is a mountain of extremely robust empirical evidence that when light travels ‘near’ a mass, it is affected; its apparent energy is reduced, and its apparent trajectory is bent.

    When you explain exactly what you mean by the key terms (light, gravity, physically affected by), I may be able to connect the dots for you.

    If there is anything in what I wrote I hope you will ask for clarification.

    Regards, JT, citizen scientist

  67. By the way, correct me if I´m wrong, but I haven´t read anything what EU folks have to say about quantum mechanics. That doesn´t belong to mainstream propaganda?

    1. To me it is ‘quantum nonsense’, but from EU i have not seen much derision to its concepts, sometimes i do see they run with it, ie “entanglement” and except the “experiments”… / It would be expected from a macro paradigm like EU to not be bothered that much by QM, E/M is ions and electrons and thus Plasma, you do not need quantum models for bulk behavior of plasma.

      1. “It would be expected from a macro paradigm like EU to not be bothered that much by QM, E/M is ions and electrons and thus Plasma, you do not need quantum models for bulk behavior of plasma”

        Actually, “ions and electrons” is QM! Neither are stable in classical EM, and the EU paradigm accepts this. So unless there is an alternative to QM in the EU paradigm …

        While some of the observed radiation from plasmas – both in the lab and in space – can be understood without much QM (e.g. free-free emission, synchrotron emission), things like plasma temperature, strength of magnetic fields (via polarization), and how ionized a plasma is (e.g. ratio of ion to neutral species) cannot be estimated without QM.

        And without the quantitative insights into plasma details that only QM can give, surely the EU paradigm is largely reduced to ‘looks like a duck’ arguments, right?

  68. What’s all this non-sense about the EU being theoretical, much less disproved?
    It’s absolutely real. Been there many times. Paris is lovely in the spring.

    lol, sorry, couldn’t resist. I’m just one of those hyper competitive guys that has to one up, even inanity.
    So now I have made the dumbest remark in this thread; not a low hurdle.

    Wishing everyone a peaceful, productive, and prosperous, Happy New Year.

  69. Jean,

    Perhaps you or Brian could explain why on the link below he describes parallax as defined by every source I’m aware of (i.e. “relative to more distant objects”) and then goes on to discuss Hipparcos without detailing the actual method of parallax they used. Isn’t this misleading?

    https://briankoberlein.com/2013/12/02/anomaly-of-hipparcos/

    “But the Pleiades is close enough to determine their distance by parallax. If you hold your thumb out in front of you and look at it from one eye, and then the other, you will see an apparent shift of your thumb relative to more distant objects. This shift is known as parallax, and we can use the effect to determine the distance to nearby stars (http://goo.gl/PLxm5i).

    Of all the different methods, parallax should be the most accurate. However, when the High Precision Parallax Collecting Satellite (Hipparcos) measured the parallax of the Pleiades, it determined a distance of 385 light years. This is significantly different from other measurements. So different in fact, that if it is accurate, the stars in the Pleiades must be anomalously dim. Much dimmer than similar stars of the same temperature.”

    1. Author

      There’s a difference between the simple ideal and actual practice. On a basic level you can measure parallax relative to distant stars or quasars, but in practice it’s more complex. Hipparcos raw data is simply the observed positions of stars, but calculating parallax requires a complex statistical analysis comparing multiple star positions. You not only have to account for the changing position of the satellite over time, but also the fact that stars are moving, “distant” stars are not perfectly stationary, gravitational lensing when stars are seen closer to the Sun, etc. One of the controversies that has arisen is the fact that Hipparcos doesn’t seem to be very accurate for star clusters. That’s likely due a problem in the analysis, but that’s still being debated. Hence, the point of the post you linked.

      The thing is, the EU folks could get the raw data and do analysis themselves, but they don’t. From what I can tell, since they seem to have such an aversion to using any mathematical or statistical tools, they don’t look at any raw data at all. Again, playing at science rather than actually doing science.

      1. Brian: “The thing is, the EU folks could get the raw data and do analysis themselves, but they don’t. From what I can tell, since they seem to have such an aversion to using any mathematical or statistical tools, they don’t look at any raw data at all.”

        From my reading of the sources Paul and Daniel provided, this seems to be true, to a quite extraordinary extent!

        Myself, I find this truly astounding; how can EU fans scream so loudly about ‘the mainstream’ being WRONG, yet do absolutely no analyses themselves, zero, nada, zip, none whatsoever!! Yet another, very concrete, indication that whatever the EU is, it is not science. Indeed, one might even go so far as to say that the EU is, in fact, anti-science.

        Perhaps even more curious – if that’s possible – is that this total lack of any discussion on doing independent analyses (much less presenting results from such) is barely noted by anyone in the TB forum. SAFIRE may seem to be an exception … but if you read carefully, you’ll see just how farcical it is (re testing core EU ideas)

  70. Aardwolf,

    If Brian doesn’t post a good reply in the next couple of weeks, I will (it’s a slow time of year).

    However, for now, I will say this: the HIPPARCOS primary sources are the published papers; a blog post by Brian is not a primary source. Unless and until you start relying on primary sources, re HIPPARCOS and how it estimated parallax, I cannot see how we can have a meaningful, science-based dialog.

  71. Brian,

    You state that it is “a complex statistical analysis comparing multiple star positions”. Does that include comparisons to the distant stars/objects in the field?

    Also, do you believe it is possible for Hipparcos to determine the parallaxes of the main catalogue without using the distant stars/objects to compare?

    Aardwolf.

    1. Hi Aardwolf,

      I’ll have a go at answering your questions, if you (and Brian) don’t mind.

      “Does that include comparisons to the distant stars/objects in the field?”

      If you’re referring to HIPPARCOS, the answer is “yes and no”. The data reductions were done without reference to any distant stars or object in the field. However, at the end, the coordinate system in HIPPARCOS is ‘tied to’ a long-established coordinate system (ICRS, from memory) which itself depends on distant stars (actually quasars, from memory). The primary HIPPARCOS parallax derivations are made without reference to distant sources.

      “Also, do you believe it is possible for Hipparcos to determine the parallaxes of the main catalogue without using the distant stars/objects to compare?”

      It’s not only possible, it’s how the HIPPARCOS parallaxes were determined!

      1. So perhaps Brian could explain why he described a different method of parallax on his other page discussing Hipparcos. It may be be less misleading to describe the actual method.

        Thanks.

  72. Jean,

    Are you stating we shouldn’t rely on what Brian posts here?

    Also, what is wrong with just stating the actual method of parallax used if it’s not the one that compares to distant objects?

    Aardwolf.

    1. Hi Aardwolf,

      “Are you stating we shouldn’t rely on what Brian posts here?”

      Hmm … more that it’s not directly relevant to what I wrote … my comment – “the HIPPARCOS primary sources are the published papers; a blog post by Brian is not a primary source” – refers to how one should go about getting answers to questions such as “how was HIPPARCOS data analyzed (‘reduced’) to produce parallax estimates?” If you truly want to find the best possible answer to questions like that, you should START with the primary sources.

      “Also, what is wrong with just stating the actual method of parallax used if it’s not the one that compares to distant objects?”

      Nothing wrong with that. And in fact, I already stated “the actual method of parallax used”! Perhaps you missed it?

      Here it is again (from my comment stardate 30 December 2015 at 6:33 am): “what HIPPARCOS did was measure the apparent position of a large number of stars on the celestial sphere, and use those positions to estimate parallax and proper motion” There’s no comparison with distant sources in that method …

      Again, if you’d like to dive into the ACTUAL methods used, I strongly recommend that you obtain the relevant primary sources and read them. If you have questions, may I suggest a different forum? The International Skeptics Forum, Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5), or CosmoQuest’s Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers section (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?8-Space-Astronomy-Questions-and-Answers) are both, IMHO, good for such an in-depth discussion.

      1. Jean,

        Could you provide a link to a primary source that describes the method of parallax used.

        Thanks,

        Aardwolf.

        1. Hi Aardwolf,

          I gave a reference, and link, in my “10 December 2015 at 3:28 pm” comment; here it is again:

          Volume three of the official HIPPARCOS results, “Construction of the Hipparcos Catalogue”, can be downloaded at: http://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/532822/546213/vol3_all.pdf/f3710c41-a34c-42ce-8731-2eb95c1c26c7

          There’s also some other links to other primary sources that may be pertinent in my “23 December 2015 at 5:56 am” comment, as well as in my “14 December 2015 at 1:51 pm” one.

  73. Brian,

    Hoping you will indulge an “outsider”. You seem to have the patience of Jobe.

    I find the EU narrative stimulating and intellectually satisfying. I have long been bothered by the accepted model’s embrace of basic concepts like dark matter, dark energy and black holes. Frankly they seem like modern substitutes for the role of the various gods in ancient times. If you can’t understand something make up a deity or abstract as a place holder and encourage religious embrace to keep the fear of the unknown at bay.

    Here’s my point: All three fundamental concepts above are “dark” meaning that science can not confirm their existence. That seems like a tenuous foundation for such a large branch of fundamental science. We have the capability to measure out to parts per billion at most scales yet these three mega entities are undetectable? They are 800 pound gorilla’s in our room and we can’t even feel their breath?

    Further, the reason they are rallied around is that their interaction with all things in the universe is needed to make (mathematical) sense of direct observations that we can make. How can they interact so profoundly with all matter yet not interact at all with our best scientific instruments? This is a “non-starter” for me personally.

    I am not a religious person and so must reject these abstracts which seem to exist only as faith based fabrications. I know they help round out the math but that is not enough to state them as mature theory. I would think mainstream astrophysics would give a serious hearing to any proposal that could transcend or even shed light on our current understanding of the universe all around us. We have front row seats yet we can’t explain what we observe. That should make us very humble indeed.

    In the past the heavens were filled with foreboding and fear. Current talk of worm holes and black holes everywhere eating everything seems like more of the same. Only through understanding do we obtain a calming perspective. I understand terrestrial electromagnetism very well and can extrapolate sufficiently to find satisfaction in the EU argument. Mainstream science appears to be still embracing witchcraft over reason and I personally feel it is on them to put substance behind their theory. Failing this, they should embrace any alternative proposal(s).

    Thanks for your patience
    Don

    1. Author

      Not reading earlier comments. Check. Claiming neutrality while arguing in favor of EU. Check. Comparison of science to religion. Bingo!

    2. Don,

      In addition to Brian’s comment, I just have to ask: what do you think science is? In particular, astronomy, astrophysics, and space science?

      And this has me greatly puzzled: “they should embrace any alternative proposal(s)” … are you honestly, truthfully implying that the Electric Universe is a serious, science-based alternative?

    3. ” If you can’t understand something make up a deity or abstract as a place holder and encourage religious embrace to keep the fear of the unknown at bay.”

      Which is exactly what is the EU is about. The unknown in this case is the lack of knowledge and understanding of even basic science.
      If you became acquainted with the concepts of phenomenological physics, dark matter and black holes might actually start to make sense.

      The fact is understanding abstract concepts can be difficult, making the effort can be rewarding in the long run.
      The EU concept might massage the ego for being “understandable”, but is in the same league as creationism or phrenology rather than real science.

  74. I have to address this psychological aspect of this EU phenomena in general. I think there´s deeper meaning than EU being just a “theory.” That is why EU fans don´t even bother with actual science. “Truth” people want the truth, they just don´t care about facts. And more over, If evolution or history is attacked, why not cosmology? Its even more abstract.

    It is acknowledged fact that there is a anti-science movement. The basic premises seem to be “if I cannot make pyramids, ancient Egyptians couldn´t do them either” or ” if I don´t understand the quantum mechanics, then it is not true.” It is sort of irony that people who enthusiastically oppose theory of relativity, are relativists in every other way, facts are like values you can cherry pick by one´s prerogative

    Everything about mainstream is a “hoax”, only truth lies in youtube videos made by these “insurgents of truth.”

    1. Ahh, yes, Youtube! Who is in charge of peer review on there these days? What you say is correct. EU, for example, is a bunch of preconceived ideas, based on various unscientific woo, mainly that peddled by Velikovsky and Talbott. The belief that this woo is correct is unshakable. Basically, it is cult-like, even quasi-religious.

      I was reading C. Leroy Ellenberger on the interweb some time back. One very good word I learned from him was ‘procrustean’. That is, having a preconceived notion, and then trying to jam all the ‘evidence’, such as myths, into it to make it work. And, of course, myth trumps science every day of the week for these people.

      Not everybody is good at science; it more often than not requires a very good grasp of maths. Something that seems to be lacking among EU advocates. Including its proponents.
      To stick to an area I am comfortable with, let’s take their ‘Electric Comet’ woo. Now these people have a deliberate habit of not making too many predictions and actually quantifying their ideas (hypotheses is too strong a word), but there is a fair bit of stuff on this particular woo floating around cyberspace in written form.

      It is trivial to show that Thornhill, when he came up with his idea of O- ions being electrically stripped from the ‘rock’, and somehow combining with solar wind H+ to form OH (which stupid scientists were mistaking as H2O!), didn’t bother to do any maths (among other things). Simple stuff, like ‘how many molecules in a litre of water?’, ‘what is the density and velocity of the solar wind at xAU?’, and ‘how many are striking a comet per second?’
      Never mind that he was still trotting out this rubbish 20+ years after the first unambiguous detection of H2O at a comet. And a good few years after solid ice was ejected from Tempel 1, etc, etc.
      One has to wonder, though, when ineptitude crosses the line into deliberate obfuscation. And why obfuscate? The word ‘procrustean’ springs to mind again. It is simply an unwavering, cult-like, quasi-religious belief that they must be right, and any evidence that shows otherwise, by definition, is wrong.

      1. Bravo sir, if they won’t produce numbers in their shame, dig theirs out and ridicule them. I’ll be here eating popcorn while hoping to see anyone address your points. It’s been an interesting read, and you Brian, show to me the reason I’d have never made a good scientist, I lack an enormous amount of patience.

  75. Science is build upon the revolution since the time of Copernicus so that’s almost 600 years ago..Those who created physics and proof based upon mathematics are the Giants that we had admired and build upon using their works, so no doubt that our knowledge that we are using base on physics are all human inventions prove upon by mathematical deduction..Sadly i’m tired of this kind of physics we have because they pushed it beyond imagination of thought that it’s real life applications are no more at used at all..

    Why not try upon discovering different things such as this EU theory? Explaining gravity in a framework of electricity?..yup we all know that it lacks mathematical proof it is because it is still in its infancy, it’s like learning math in arithmetic then jump directly through calculus…by the way when Calculus was invented by Newton there goes immediately an opening for classical mechanics so i think we should invent another math if in case it would match an explanation to understand this new EU theory to somehow make it real like how General Relativity was elegantly conceived Mathematically

    1. “Explaining gravity in a framework of electricity?..yup we all know that it lacks mathematical proof it is because it is still in its infancy”

      Kristian Factora, you’re joking, right? You know, don’t you, that the mathematics of electricity has been well known for well over a century, right (Maxwell’s equations)? And that hundreds of people, far smarter than me, have tried to ‘explain gravity’ using electricity, right? And that none have come anywhere near close to be able to do so, right? And that the mathematics of both electricity and gravity (i.e. General Relativity) is now very well understood, right?

      So where did you get your – apparently poorly-informed – idea from, may I ask?

      1. In reviewing this – extremely long! – set of comments, I am struck by many ‘drive by’ comments there are by EU fans … a single comment, full of bald assertions “agin the mainstream” and/or waffly pro-EU ones, followed by nothing.

        And the few EU fans who do hang around to post more than one comment, all but perhaps two do not engage in a rational, logical discussion, certainly not one that involves references to primary sources, or quantitative analyses; and rarely do the glaring inconsistencies in EU propaganda get even mentioned, much less addressed.

        Such behavior is, IMHO, antithetical to the very science these EU fans profess to wanting to see ‘the mainstream’ to turn/return to. What explains this astonishing inconsistency?

          1. Ben

            Thank you so much for this profiling link. It helps me a lot towards understanding the EU/PC mind.

  76. While I think that the EU theory is false, the comparison between a CFL bulb’s spectrum and the sun’s thermal spectrum is not a good comparison. It is a comparison designed to give a certain result, disproving the EU theory. Scientific analysis should NEVER be based around trying to produce a predetermined result.

    Here’s what’s wrong with that comparison specifically. The fact is that when an electrically created plasma has enough current flowing through it, the resulting high temperature in the gas will broaden the emission lines of the spectrum. As current continues to increase, the resulting temperature will eventually be so high, that the spectrum will be broadened to the point that it is a continuous black-body spectrum. At this point the hotter inner part of the plasma will be emitting true thermal spectrum, and the outer cooler part of the plasma will actually produce an absorption spectrum, with the absorption lines being at the exact same spots as the emission lines if the overall plasma was cooler. And it doesn’t matter whether the gas is heated by electric current or by nuclear fusion. At the temperatures involved in a star, you will always have a thermal spectrum marked with some absorption lines.

    You can see this that effect in this diagram, with increased temperature and pressure in a mercury arc lamp, the spectral lines broden, from narrow emission lines to wide emission lines. http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Images/Illustrations/M%20Spectra.jpg
    And the maximum pressure there is 200atmospheres. In the core of the sun, it’s millions of times atmospheric pressure. If you assume that EU is true, and that this super hot plasma is generated by an electric current rather than nuclear fusion, that doesn’t negate the fact that at these temperatures and pressures the emission spectral lines will be so broad that they will create a continuous black-body spectrum.

    Now I don’t believe in EU theory, as there are many other ways it fails. However this particular comparison between a CFL bulb and the continuous spectrum of the sun is completely inaccurate comparison, that actually abandons well known scientific principles. In other words, in order to disprove one scientific theory that abandons well known scientific principles, the writer of this article himself abandoned scientific principles. That is BAD science writing.

    1. Author

      In the works I cited, the claim is that there is no fusion in the core of the Sun, but rather that the surface is electrically heated to produce light. This is why so many EU supporters like to point out that corona is much, much hotter than the photosphere (which, they argue, traditional models can’t explain). This is a low pressure region, so you would get spectral lines similar to a CFL, and the comparison I made is valid.

      If you make a different argument that somehow the electric current heats the core, then the EU model breaks down for different reasons. While there is pressure broadening in plasma emission lines, it doesn’t match a blackbody even when it looks nearly continuous. There are still emission spikes that are not seen in the solar spectrum. If you somehow just heated the core electrically, then it would look like a blackbody because the light emitted would be thermal, not electrically induced. There would still be the problem of neutrino emissions, which match predictions of the solar fusion model.

    2. Ben, the physical processes which generate ‘light’ in a plasma – whether heated by a current or otherwise – are well-understood. And are taught in undergrad and graduate astronomy/astrophysics courses. There are textbooks on this topic.

      What you describe – the spectrum from a plasma as the current through it increases – is a highly simplified, even over-simplified, version of what actually happens. True, pressure and temperature are key factors in what the spectrum of a heated plasma is, but so is density, and density gradient, factors you did not mention.

      Brian’s explanations are substantially correct, even though he has had to simplify somewhat.

      I find it odd that EU proponents – not you Ben – seem to rely totally on oversimplified ‘word sketches’ of phenomena which they should be very familiar with (such as the spectrum of a plasma), as if playing around with such word sketches is a valid alternative to doing quantitative analyses.

  77. When I was 6 years old in kindergarten, my stood up in front of the class and asserted that lightning was caused when clouds rubbed against each other separating electric charges. (this claim is still found in many textbooks today). The assertion seemed so absurd (how can you rub clouds together) that even at six years of age, I laughed so hard I fell out of my chair. Of course, I was suspended from school for a few days and sent home for questioning the teachers authority.

    As a result of that experience, I’ve lived my life questioning everything and examining the assumptions underlying every claim, theory or scientific consensus.

    For the first time in years, Brian’s assertions have caused me to fall out of my chair laughing at their absurdity.

    1. Paul, do you have anything to offer, other than a bald assertion? For example, what – specifically – do you consider to be absurd? And why?

      I do hope you’ll stick around, and engage in a meaningful dialog. Unlike Kristian Factora and almost all EU proponents, who are merely ‘drive by’ commenters.

  78. In my past iterations some years ago, my old avatar was once “Hon. Salacious B. Crumb” on the Universe Today site, where I learned how to destroy EU argument with alacrity. Jean Tate, who comments here, was pointed out by me of the underlying EU/PC propaganda, and like me, see the utter folly of their way and their dabbling ways of pseudoscience. (I was one of the main reasons UT deleted EU/PC from it blogs as a matter of policy, actually.)

    The internal physiology of the EU/PC proponent I postulate is the isolation of individuals from being able contributing to any science at all – leaving the nature of the world in the hands of those with the better intelligence or comprehension. I.e. They have no say or control in how the universe behaves or how it is interpreted. These leaving them, at least in their minds, minions in a place they have no means of contributing anything. To correct this, they desperately seek validation behind their pseudoscience, all in the hope that one off their speculations is “discovered”, and their viewed dystopia of established science finally crumbles and disintegrates into dust. (There is also current evidence that they use comments of the non-faithful as a learning tool, using this to sharpen their arguments. Article/Comment sites are their target to spread the word, hoping for increases in Google searching lists.)

    LATEST EU/PC ATTACK ON ASTROPHYSICAL SCIENCE

    EU/PCs focus in 2016 is now stellar evolution, whose attempt is to find some massive flaw to swing the balance towards their pet objects – electric stars (ES – their abbreviation). Unlike the fundamental anti-evolutionists, who now avoid talking stellar evolution because it erases the idea of a 6000-old Earth via basic science.

    Here they wish attack the basis of the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram (HR Diagram) – replacing luminosity with electric current to explain why stars appear as they do. (See https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/02/11/stellar-evolution-in-an-electric-universe-space-news/ )

    “Humans have not been around long enough to actually observe any stars making the predicted slow migrations from one place on the HR diagram to another. So, at present, slow “stellar evolution” is another one of those complicated theoretical constructs that live brightly in the minds of astrophysicists without any observational evidence of their actual existence.”

    According to Don Scott (http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm), we find interesting impossible notions of EU/PC regarding stars, which are so easily and quickly dispelled I.e.

    1) Star colours, temperature are due to current density on the star’s surface. (Yet what is the measure of current density on the Sun, they don’t know!)

    2) Nova are caused by electrical stress via “fussioning” (being stars splitting apart) and are related to Wolf-Rayet stars. (Plainly fabrication, and easily dispelled by observed spectra.)

    3) Red giants are large stars which can be physically measured, yet EU says they are small and have huge coronas.

    Thornhill even says in explaining variable stars, that;

    “Have a look at variable stars, particularly bursters, where I think you will find the brightness curve is like that of lightning with a sudden rise time and exponential decay. Some stars are regular and others irregular. The irregular ones seem to average the power over the bursts. When they are more frequent, the energy is less per burst. If there is a long latency, the next burst is more powerful. It’s the kind of thing you would expect from an electrical circuit when the trigger level is variable and the power input constant.
    I think many variable stars are actually binaries with some kind of electrical interaction. Long period Miras (A type of variable star) may actually have an object orbiting within the shell of a red giant (as I have proposed for the proto-Saturnian system)”

    Even on Stellar Evolution itself, Scott says;

    “In the Electric Star hypothesis, there is no reason to attribute youth to one spectral type over another. We conclude that a star’s location on the HR diagram only depends on its size and the electric current density it is presently experiencing. If, for whatever reason, the strength of that current density should change, then the star will change its position on the HR diagram… Otherwise, no movement from one place to another on that plot is to be expected. And its age remains indeterminate regardless of its mass or spectral type. This is disquieting in the sense that we are now confronted by the knowledge that our own Sun’s future is not as certain as is predicted by mainstream astronomy. We cannot know whether the Birkeland current presently powering our Sun will increase or decrease, nor how long it will be before it does so.”

    There are dozens of holes here, where it looks like science, but is actually pseudoscience. As I stated above, they seek some new discovery to support their speculation, which Scott explains himself as ; “Yet these phenomena are perfectly understandable using the ES model. We eagerly await NASA’s next ‘mysterious discovery’ to further strengthen the case for the Electric Star hypothesis.” (Notably this page linked says of the NASA sun mission “The SAFIRE Project is now scientifically investigating the Electric Sun theory.” is one of the biggest falsehoods claimed by EU/PC of all. It a has nothing to do with it!)

    We knowStellar evolution is one of the strongest foundation stones of astronomy and astrophysics, which has existed for quite sometime. We know the basics with great certainty, and although not totally solved. The Juergens’ electric star model presented in 1972, and proposed by Ralph Juergens (1924-1978), which the EU model is based (I.e. http://www.everythingselectric.com/ralph-juergens/), is know shown as clearly wrong. His non-peer reviewed paper is “Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail?” (http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0404-stellar.htm), and is the EU/PC primary source to cherry-pick the neutrino problem elaborated by them to support their silly ideas. It is clearly old science (late-1970s), and since the creation of larger neutrino telescopes and improved theory, is no longer an issue.

    Easily dispelling much of this nonsense, we only need to go to binary stars, whose orbits disclose the mass of stars (and black holes) from their mutual gravitation, let alone, the mass-luminosity relationship determined by the component stars,. Even knowing this, we can find dynamic parallaxes (independent on trigonometric parallaxes), which not only finds distance, but determines the limiting parameters, such as size and density. If we consider we can also measure directly the physical sizes of some stars by stellar interferometry, means we can easily show EU/PC is dead wrong.

    This is another test of the Electric Universe, which shows a massive failure.

  79. Brian,

    I am really torn. On one hand I’m simply amazed at how you continue to respond to these ridiculous posts and really think you should have stopped after 10 posts or so. On the other hand if you had quit, I might have fallen down the EU rabbit hole myself.

    So I say THANK YOU FOR SAVING ME from 100’s of hours of lost time/life on useless conspiracy.

    There are algorithms being developed (or have been developed) that are able to distinguish between real and fake restaurant reviews. I’m positive that a similar algorithm can do the same here based purely on language that you use versus those by EU supporters. Obviously it doesn’t take an algorithm, you can plainly see the similarities between language and logic flow (lack thereof) made by EU supporters herein and those made on countless other conspiracy theory blogs. I’ve never seen a dead horse get pulverized like this and these nimrods keep coming back. I feel sad for them. They REALLY think one day they’ll be ‘vindicated’ like they’re Galileo or something.

    You’ve gone out of your way to be fair and give any semblance of legitimacy to severely flawed science and it’s nut job supports.

    Brian, Science bless you. You are truly carrying the ‘cross’ for all humanity on this one. Maybe you should just crucify yourself since there are no Romans around to put this blog to rest.

    Thank you again.

  80. I’m no physicist, but it seems to me that, logically, for galaxy-birthing electromagnetic fields to become “kinked” in the first place would require another force acting upon them.

    Say, spacetime curvature.

  81. i am now watching the ”official movie” electric universe on you tube. i stopped watching when speaker said that ”no one has ever been able to fuse 2 hydrogens to make helium in the lab. well the germans seem to be doing a pretty good job of that. nuclear fusion which emits a photon as power.

  82. I have enjoyed reading the comments from both sides of the debate. I recognize that the deck is slightly stacked due to the professional and scholarly research in the person of Brian, representing the standard model of cosmology, and the layman attempts from Chris and others, representing the alternative theories of EU. The standard model (SM) views of astrophysics that have had billions of dollars invested, government and media backing, and open access to peer review and lab time, gives the SM of cosmology a far greater chance of success and appeal to the greater audience. IMHO I find flaws in both models in logic and what is accepted as scientific proof and what passes so easily as evidence. John Bell had found errors in Einstein’s logic that took over 30 years to be discovered. Many phycists and matheticians had attempted to prove that Einstein’s locality model was wrong, including Neil’s Bohr, but it would take another 30 years before something could be tested in the lab with continual success. This may yet be the case with the relationship of electricity and gravity to the formation of the universe and the quantum world of quarks, gluons and leptons. I appreciate that this science that is represented by Brian is very well researched and backed by implications and mathematical formulas. Again, IMHO, “truth” is just as much about the art of sophistry as it is about emperical observation. Socrares, Plato and Aristotle successfully championed the standard model of their own day, as did Augustine and the Cappodocian fathers champion the SM in their day. A new standard model has arisen, replacing the standard models of the past, and as in the past, the victor possesses the stacked deck, not through “truth”, but through a complicated set of circumstances and the art of persuasion. This type of jolsting will probably exist to the end of time. Thanks to everyone who has participated.

  83. Brian, is your contention that because “Findlay’s ebook has no mention of Nutrinos”, and Findlay apparently remarks that “there is no fusion in the sun”, then is this the basis for your statement that “The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.” and that “the EU model clearly fails this test”? Is this “prediction” based on any actual EU statement or is it an argument you make based on silence?

    I know you try to be as honest and fair, however when this question about nutrinos was asked earlier (several times) you seemed to sidestep from giving any confirmation for where you draw your information from, or whether or not you conceded this to be a false statement/allegation. I understand that you are getting tired answering things back and forward, but ignoring, censoring and banning your posters, when they have clearly asked you questions with equal civility as what you have given them, is probably one of the most damning arguments against the personal security you have in the position you hold. You are the one who presented the idea of ‘testing the Electric Universe Model’, Brian, so silencing all dissention does not present a strong case for the standard model. Please try to understand this from the readers point of view… By allowing only posters who praise your views and cherry picking posters who are allowed to challenge is one of the arguments that have been used against the standard model – they do not get a fair hearing or an equal opportunity to present their case. Not here and not in the world of peer review or government financial support. This in itself makes the standard model science to look cooked and agenda driven. If you are able to teach without being threatened then please do so without the ad hominem or censorship that you are currently engaging in.

    1. Author

      Yes, as I’ve said in earlier comments, my statement about solar neutrinos in the original post came from the EU claim that there is no fusion in the solar core, combined with absolutely no mention of neutrinos. After astrophysicists raised the clear observation of neutrinos as a counter to the claimed lack of fusion, EU pushed back by first questioning the neutrino results, then raising the neutrino oscillation problem. Of course over time we’ve detected the full range of solar neutrinos, including the neutrino spectrum from proton-proton fusion, so the consensus view is that solar neutrinos verify core fusion.

      In a 2014 video, Thornhill seems to concede that neutrino observations do agree with the core fusion model (though he avoids stating it directly) but claims that it won’t prove core fusion unless we produce neutrinos near the Sun experimentally and observe neutrino oscillation between the Sun and Earth, despite the fact that neutrino observation has been confirmed in experiments on Earth numerous times. He then goes on to claim (without citing references) that the electric Sun model is supported by lab experiments done on Earth. So apparently when a lab experiment supports the standard model it proves nothing, but when a lab experiment supports EU it is further confirmation of the great truth. This is deeply disingenuous, and not remotely scientific.

      And of course you had to make the claim of bias, that I’m not giving EU a chance to defend itself. But here’s the thing: more than a year and a half ago when I was accused of misrepresenting EU claims, I specifically asked for a modern overview of the EU model and claims. Specifically “if anyone would like to send me what they consider to be an accurate overview of EU, feel free. The catch is that if it can’t accuse scientists conspiracy to protect their jobs.” Basically, just create something like Findlay’s ebook, with a clear overview and clear predictions. No one has taken up my offer.

      I guess it’s easier to accuse me of silencing dissent than it is to clearly outline your opposing claim.

  84. I agree that yelling conspiracy is not a good tact, but it is a largely observed scientific opinion that is held outside of EU circles as well. For instance, google the ‘Cosmological Statement’ or ‘Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists’ and you will hear similar complaints that “research is hampered by a lack of funding” for science done on alternative models. A simialr issue is raised in the documentary called ‘Intelligent Design on Trial’, available on Youtube, wherein many scientist lost their jobs for agreeing with the premise of Intelligent Design. If you are living off the popular success of the Big Bang model then these are not issues that concern you, but I am sure you would probably make similar complaints if the science research that you favor didn’t come with a secure job, a puppy and a sports car. You could at least understand why they would view this science bias with suspicion.

    On the “bias” claim that you brought up, it is a little bit difficult to answer and give you a “modern overview of the EU model and claims”. I dont know that there is any definitive EU model, as from what I can tell it is still a model being researched and developed. It severely lacks funding and access to the same resources that the BBT scientist has access to so it is taking longer to develop. That being said, as far back as the 1940’s there was a research paper presented by physicist Charles Bruce who saw a combination of electrical and fusion activity in the sun. He is also alligned to the EU cause as being one of the pioneers for recognising electricity in space. As far as I know he also recognized a combination of gravitional and EM forces at work in the formation of matter. I would think that many EU supporters would ‘gravitate’ toward his learned opinion and break ranks with this and other ideas that the modern EU model proposes. I would tend to think that a combination of forces were and are still at work in the formation of matter, not just a single silver bullet that both the BBT and the EU theory tend to emphasis. Also, on planetary scarring… why does it need to be only volcanic, only meteorite or only electrical. Isn’t there visual and lab evidence that supports all 3 models, and probably at least one other explanation simultaneously? Like you rightly criticised, “when a lab experiment supports the standard model it means nothing…” This criticism, however, can be leveled at both sides. It is when a model increases in personal and political relevance that the model more and more resembles a religion. It’s adherents become fanatics that are unwilling to concede the logic or strength of the opposing view. It’s disciples become emotionally charged and ready to commit violence against anyone who opposes their cherished belief system. Religion has had this violent experience for thousands of years, but it is not just religions that have invested interests in belief systems. Just look at the Cold War, for an example, of two opposing ideologies of capitalism and communism, and the violence that the entire world was threatened by as a consequence. We are willing to kill for our beliefs, and not just religious beliefs.

    Personally I see the wisdom of Neils Bohr’s complimentarity has a place in the modern world of science (and religion). It seems reasonable to me that objections that EU make to the ‘gravitation only’ model are a way forward to fully grasp the mysteries of the universe without having to invent hypothetical energies or matter to fill the gaps. This is the very thing that the New Atheists criticize religion for doing… whenever there is a missing piece of the puzzle they induce a God as a gap filler. This is exactly what is happening within current BBT IMO, it is adding so many God’s of the gaps it puts religion to shame. This criticism is getting a very wide following outside of EU so the disciples of BBT should perhaps take heed otherwise they are just another fundamentalist religion. EU, of course, needs to be cautious of the same outcome.

    1. Author

      If your position is that I’m part of an anti-religious cabal that fires those who dare speak against the holy dogma as a way to keep a cushy job, then you’re not capable of having a reasonable discussion.

  85. Lol. No, you are no part of a cabal. You are hotly emotional though. You are passionate about your belief systems and your need to defend them. Does that make you part of a cabal? I think not. And how you arrived at the assumption that I claimed that you were anti-religious is a bit of a challenge. Perhaps you put Intelligent Design in the religous category? And the idea that many proponents of ID lost their jobs was based on anti-religius grounds? This is not true and I would venture to guess that you know this, but you are turning the argument around to say something it never said. You are possibly contending from within a glass house which is why you are being so defensive. You might know that answer better than anyone, although it is lot harder to be honest about such self appraisal.

    What I have shown is that there are claims of scientific bias from many different individuals within many disciplines. Now, all of these others could be flatly wrong, but as the evidence and allegations are mounting from a very wide representations of society it is far more likely that something is rotten in Denmark. A little bit like the Cosby affair. But it is interesting that when these allegations are brought to light that it is you who are claiming to be the persecuted victim, ss in, unfair claims of being “part of an anti-religious cabal”. That is a bit ironic. Bill Cosby thinks the same way. If you are unable to continue this “test of EU” without having a persecution complex then that is something you must decide. I think you have put up a good case for BBT at times in spite of you being overly emotional with inflamed zeal and having a persecution complex when bias has been demonstrated.

  86. I came here looking for some convincing refutation of the EU model, and I walk away empty-handed.

    For example, on the solar neutrinos issue, the statement of the EU position is simply incorrect. The EU model does not forbid some nuclear fusion, it simply says that’s not the primary power source. So some degree of neutrino-producing thermonuclear fusion is not inconsistent with the EU model, yet the article asserts that this represents a falsification.

    The rest of the article is similar in quality – these are basically strawman arguments that seem to be derived from a lack of understanding of the EU model. If I were to take this same approach to the standard model, it would be trivial to call out phenomena that strongly contradict it – the galaxy rotation problem, the acceleration of the solar wind, the lack of mechanisms to produce heavy metals in sufficient quantities to match observations, and many more. “Dark matter” is basically an admission that the standard model is not just wrong, but dramatically wrong – if it is anything, it is an expression of the degree to which the standard model has failed.

    I would pull this article, as it appears to have the opposite effect that was intended. It leaves me convinced that critics of the EU model have not studied it well enough to criticize it with scientific rigor.

    1. “For example, on the solar neutrinos issue, the statement of the EU position is simply incorrect. The EU model does not forbid some nuclear fusion, it simply says that’s not the primary power source.”

      Which EU model is that? You have Juergens’, Thornbill’s, Scott’s or various pet models including a “cathode” model against the preferred “anode” model.
      Scott’s model doesn’t even appear to entertain the idea of fusion.
      One of the absurdities of the EU model is that its practitioners cannot even agree on a standard model.

      As Brian has pointed out fusion cannot occur at the surface because the temperature is too low to overcome the Coulomb barrier.

      Let’s assume however fusion was possible, EU models that support surface fusion have a much bigger problem than neutrinos, namely gamma radiation.
      Why isn’t the Sun a powerful emitter of continuous gamma radiation from every point on its surface?
      In the mainstream core fusion model no such problem exists as high energy photons emitted are absorbed and re-emitted many times before reaching the surface as lower energy photons. Gamma radiation is observed in high energy solar flares but this has nothing in common with any EU model.

      “…the acceleration of the solar wind…”
      Lets see I assume this relates to the acceleration over a double layer or potential drop.
      Perhaps you would like to explain how the solar wind composed of positive ions and electrons are being accelerated IN THE SAME DIRECTION under these conditions.

      “……the lack of mechanisms to produce heavy metals in sufficient quantities to match observations…..”
      Does this imply that there is an electric universe model that is able to give a better prediction than the standard model, if so please supply it otherwise it is a tired old false dichotomy argument.

  87. Where is there a singular definitive source for EU? I went to a few sources, thunderbolt, etc., and found no equations.

    This whole argument makes as much sense as pissing into the wind.

    1. Author

      The PDF I linked to in the post seems to be the only concise introduction to EU. It is praised by both Talbot and Scott as being a clear and accurate introduction to EU. Unfortunately when you read the PDF and conclude that “no fusion occurs” means no neutrinos they cry foul and say the PDF doesn’t represent EU accurately. I’ve asked for an updated summary for more than a year, but nothing yet. So the PDF link is about all there is.

      You’re right, though, no equations, because “math is bad, mkay?

  88. I have a degree in EE and reading that pdf makes me weep. Not one equation in 195 pages. An electrical theory without Maxwell’s equations seems just wrong. So so wrong.

    Actually I found this site from a link in someone’s blog about the theory of aether. Something I thought Einstein put to rest. Oh well.

    1. Author

      Wow. About 40 papers, where most of the topics are actually minor ideas about standard physics. Where’s the peer reviewed paper disproving core fusion, or that sunspots are plasma holes, or gravity is actually a polarization of atoms?

    2. You have to love the disclaimer at the top of the page:

      “There are many peer reviewed papers on electricity (electric fields and electric currents) in space. They do not necessarily cover aspects of the “Electric Universe” theories. This website does not necessarily endorse any papers listed, and the authors listed are responsible only for their own work.”

      Did you read the titles at all? This is a collection of papers with the words “space” and “electricity” in them.

      Do you actually believe any of this stuff or do you go against the grain because the SM of the universe is the “establishment?”

      1. Author

        Yeah, you gotta love it. Our theory gets a lot of criticism for not having peer reviewed papers. Here’s a list of papers that aren’t really about our model so you can link to them when someone mentions the fact that we don’t have any peer reviewed papers. Remember to call them a dumbass when they question you.

  89. I have a question for SteveR, DavidG, and levon marcellus: if you had limited access to the Hubble Space Telescope, any one of the 8-10m class optical telescopes here on Earth, ALMA, the VLA, Chandra, and/or XMM-Newton, where would you point them? And why? What combo of cameras, spectroscopes, filters, frequencies, etc would you choose? And why?

    There are quite a few, high quality, freely available datasets of optical observations, such as SDSS, DECaLS, CHFT, Suprime-Cam, and many others; ditto IR (e.g. 2MASS, UKIDSS, WISE). What analyses using these have been done by “electrical theorists”?

    One thing I find astonishing about EU fans is that, despite their whining (how else to characterize it?) about lack of funds, access, etc, not a single one of them has made even the most vague proposal for testing “the EU”, using either the world’s best astronomical observatories or one of the huge, high-quality, free astronomy datasets! At its simplest level, describing how to go about creating such a proposal, or description of such tests, would take, what, an hour? And fleshing it out to the point of being ready for at least a serious discussion – in any one of a dozen online forums – a day at the most. Why has no fan of “the EU” ever done anything like this?

  90. I thought the original issue with bb was expansion being justified by red shift. Yet there was at least one connected body of galaxies/quasars that had varying red shifts. That red shift therefore had more to do with age than distance. I can find the details if you wish a more clear question from me. I hope you can answer it however. I am very curious about this of course.

    1. Author

      I presume you’re thinking of Stephans’s Quintet, which Halton Arp thought was connected as a single cluster even though one galaxy has a very different redshift. Modern observations clearly show that particular galaxy is not connected to the others, just in the same direction from our vantage point. The “redshift measures age not distance” argument has long been disproven.

    1. Author

      Yeah, I’m not really interested in contributing to the Thunderbolts forum. I get brigaded enough on my own blog without poking that beehive. I actually read through your comments, however, and here’s a few thoughts.

      Apparently I’m ignoring the works of great EU scientists like Alfven, Birkeland, and others. It seems the only post you’ve read on my blog is this one.

      Here’s a post on Alfven’s work in MHD and the pros and cons of his cosmology model.

      Here’s one on the corona heating mystery, and how Alfven waves might be the answer. This one also talks about Birkeland currents producing aurora on Earth.

      Here’s one showing evidence of Alfven waves in black hole jets.

      Here’s one looking at how Birkeland currents (dark plasma) might explain dark matter.

      How about z-pinches, Halton Arp’s redshift model, Fahr’s ideas about the cosmic background, etc.

      The rest of your comments seem to focus on the fact that I’m either not representing EU fairly, or I simply don’t get it. I’ve actually dealt with a lot of EU supporters, and the biggest problem is that you never know which position on the spectrum they’re going to take:

      Plasma astrophysics is a legitimate science! (I completely agree.)
      Mainstream cosmologists have problems their models can’t answer (True)
      Plasma physics could explain dark matter/dark energy/no big bang (Interesting, but I’m not convinced)
      The Sun is powered by interstellar electric fields (No)
      The Valles Marineris on Mars was carved electrically! (Hoo boy…)
      EU means the Universe is 6,000 years old (facepalm)

      So arguing that I didn’t provide full coverage of all variations of EU is weak tea. There is no clear and specific version of EU that can be seen as reasonably “official.” If you folks would like me to make a better critique of EU, put together a summary of key tenets and predictions (say 20 pages or less) and I’d be happy to read it. Otherwise all you’re doing is whining.

      One more thing, you folks might want to be careful about using phrases like “professional misconduct” in your comments. It has legal implications regarding libel/slander and defamation of character. I really don’t care, but someone with a thinner skin could view it as legally actionable.

    2. “simply ignoring all the published works by Alfven, Bruce, Birkeland, Perratt and many others …” Who is “Bruce”? And who are the “many others”? Are Scott, Talbott, and Thornhill among them?

      In addition to what’s in Brian’s reply to your post, MichaelMozina, I’d like to point out that this blog post has well over 300 comments. If you go through them all, you’ll see that a lot of what’s in your TB forum posts (per your link) is covered in these comments. E.g. “Special Relativity is wrong. General Relativity is wrong.” (BTW, Alfven may have “had no problem with GR theory”, but he clearly misunderstood it; e.g. see “Hubble expansion in a Euclidean framework”, Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 66, no. 1, Nov. 1979, p. 23-37); “your own erroneous strawman representation of EU/PC theory” (your characterization of “EU/PC theory” is rather inconsistent with what many proponents of said theory wrote, right here); “every cause/effect claim that is associated with EU/PC theory has the potential of being tested in the lab under controlled conditions” (ditto).

      Taking Brian’s point (“the biggest problem is that you never know which position on the spectrum they’re going to take”) in a different way, I note that you use the following in your TBF post: “EU/PC concepts”, “EU/PC theory”, “the EU/PC cosmology model”, “EU/PC themes of cosmology”, “EU/PC cosmology theory”, “EU/PC solar models”, “EU/PC cosmology paradigm”, , “the EU/PC paradigm”, “EU/PC theories (plural)”, and “the EU model” (probably not an exhaustive list). I’m sure you’d agree that, even in context, there’s rather a lot of inconsistency here.

      1. Author

        He’s referring to Charles Bruce, who in the 40s argued that while the core of the Sun is nuclear powered, much of the surface phenomena is electrically driven. Self published a monograph on his ideas. You can see the appeal to EU fans.

        1. Charles Bruce need for “electrically driven” surface phenomena lead to him lowering the observed temperature of the Sun from ~5700 K to ~3000 K (from memory) and adding dust so that he could have his favored method of generating lightning available. EU proponents just see lightning = electricity and ignore the real Sun where 70 years of observations have confirmed a temperature of ~5700 K and detected no dust.

    3. Brian’s comment, earlier today, addresses much of what I had intended to write, based on my re-reading your TBF posts Michael; in particular, Brian was clear in this blog post as to the sources he used for what “EU theory” is.

      “EU/PC community”: This blog post is explicitly about “the Electric Universe”, and uses Findlay’s e-book as the primary reference. The letter combo “EU/PC” does not appear in Findlay; indeed, even “plasma cosmology” appears only twice (and one of those uses is by a reviewer). So how did you infer that what’s in the blog post is about “the EU/PC community” (or concepts, theory, cosmology model, themes of cosmology, cosmology theory, solar models, cosmology paradigm, paradigm, or theories (plural))?

      FWIW, a quick google seems to show that the phrase “EU/PC community” is associated far more often with you than anyone else.

      Solar neutrinos (again): Have you read Findlay’s e-book?

      The version in the link in the blog is dated 5th January, 2013, and copyrighted 2012. It includes glowing comments by reviewers, who include both Thornhill and Scott, the authors of the two secondary sources used for this blog post. The word “neutrino” does not appear anywhere in the nearly 200 pages of this book! Indeed, there are two places where you’d expect mention of neutrinos would be mandatory, both in the section “Some basic theory that would help”:

      * in his description of the weak nuclear force: Findlay writes (I’m not kidding) “The weak force is responsible for a naturally occurring event that takes place when, for example, a neutron in the nucleus of an atom ‘changes itself’ (decays or reverts) into a single positive proton and a single negative electron. When this happens, some amount of energy that is no longer required is also given off as radiation.” Perhaps Findlay is among the EU adherents who consider that neutrinos do not exist?

      * in “Nuclear Fusion” Findlay omits the nuclear reactions which many independent research efforts have shown are common in the Sun, the ones which emit neutrinos; these reactions are also central to solar models, ones in which the Sun is powered by fusion. These are the “solar neutrinos”.

      So, how to explain Findlay’s glaring omission? Or, more pertinently, how to explain Thornhill’s glowing review, given what he wrote, about solar neutrinos, in 2001?

  91. FYI Brian,

    I responded to you over at Thunderbolts at the link I provided to you earlier. I have started to read through your list of other suggested links. Suffice to say I was reasonably impressed at your presentation of Alfven’s expanding electric universe theory, but it brought up more questions and concerns for me than it answered with respect to this more recent post on the topic of what you’re calling “electric universe” theory.

    For the record, after skimming through your other posts on the topics you suggested, this one particular blog post on Thornhill’s “electric universe” theory is your own real Waterloo experience as it relates to EU/PC theory as far as I can see. I think you did a pretty good job explaining Alfven’s basic cosmology model in one page, even if I didn’t agree with your criticisms of that model. I’m thinking that I may have misjudged you based on this one blog entry.

    I’ll do my best to keep our conversations as friendly as possible, but you’re currently still on my “list” until I see some movement or at least some legitimate (and specific) references on the neutrino and redshift presentation of your “electric universe” criticisms. 🙂

    I am however even more mystified after reading your suggested links as to why you would suggest that electric universe theory was somehow incompatible with GR theory after you had already been discussing Alfven’s EU/PC expansion model. After reading that blog entry on Alfven’s cosmology ideas which you presented in a professional fashion, I have no idea where you get your redshift concepts from as it relates the redshift/distance predictions of EU/PC theory, or your claim that any EU/PC solar model predicts the emission of zero neutrinos. Some help and some very specific citations would be appreciated.

    Sincerely,

    Michael

    1. Over in TBF, you took Brian to task for not providing an exact, primary source, reference (down to the paragraph, no less). Yet in discussing “the neutrino image of the Sun”, you seemed much less concerned (FWIW, I think the primary source is Figure 2 in “Measurements of the Solar Neutrino Flux from Super-Kamiokande’s First 300 Days”, Physical Review Letters, Volume 81, Issue 6, August 10, 1998, pp.1158-1162).

      On Alfven’s cosmological model: in which of his papers covering this does he show that it is consistent with GR? FWIW, I’ve read what I think is all of them, and there is no such demonstration; in fact, I think it’s pretty clear he doesn’t understand GR, as applied to cosmology (I’d love to be shown to be wrong, however).

      On Thornhill’s “prediction of solar neutrinos”, as you wrote in TBF yesterday: Per your source (which is not, as I’m sure you are well aware, a paper published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal), “photospheric lightning discharges” generate all “the various neutrino “flavours””. Really? Do you have a source for that (other than the one you quote from)? It seems ridiculously wrong, in so many respects … so I would expect that it’s been rigorously studied, and (per your own standards) is backed by extensive lab-based experimental results.

      Back to solar neutrinos. You wrote (in TBF) “I am personally a Birkeland (internally powered) solar model supporter myself”. How are solar neutrinos produced (generated) in such a model? What does such a model have to do with Birkeland?

      There’s lots more, but just this one for now: in TBF you wrote ” A simple scattering of starlight in plasma can easily account for the overall background temperature of the universe”. As I’m sure you are well aware, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has a spectrum that is almost identical to that of a black body. How, in detail, can starlight scattered by plasma produce a black body spectrum?

    2. Author

      I’d be very interested in your response to Jean’s questions regarding EU claims, particularly in light of the fact that your argument against this post is that it doesn’t address all the broad and nebulous of EU. In the post I am very clear that EU ideas are wide ranging, and that I’d specifically focus on three texts that seemed to be the most popular. I cite them as references. You can disagree with my claim that these references are representative of EU, but the fact is they are the most popular EU books out there.

      Thornhill very clearly asserts that GR is wrong. To quote him: “GR must be wrong because space is not some ‘thing’ that can be warped mysteriously by the presence of matter. The math of GR explains nothing.”

      Findlay argues against any fusion occurring in stars. In chapter 6 of his ebook we stresses this is true for all stars, and uses small cool stars as an example: “Temperatures this low indicate that the thermonuclear fusion process cannot possibly be occurring inside these bodies. Yet X-rays have been detected coming from similarly cool brown dwarf stars, where again, the low temperatures involved are fundamentally incapable of initiating the production of this powerful type of radiation.” No fusion means no neutrinos, hence my statement that the Sun doesn’t produce neutrinos. Yes, other variations of EU try to fudge neutrinos into surface physics, but there are also EU folks that argue that neutrinos don’t exist at all.

      You also seem to be focused on Alfven’s works, which I’ve talked about. Alfven got some things right and some things very wrong. His work on MHD is still used today. His cosmology has been completely debunked by the evidence. This is not a knock on Alfven. Einstein got some things right, and some things very wrong. Same with Eddington, etc.

      So go ahead and address Jean’s concerns, and then we can discuss things further.

      1. Just in case Michael forgets to drop by and say that he’s addressed all but the last of my posts today, in the TBF link, I’ll say it. I’ll leave it to you to decide for yourself if he addressed my concerns (or answered my questions), or not; personally, he didn’t, with one exception (of course, he may not, yet, have even read my latest comment here).

        I asked: “On Alfven’s cosmological model: in which of his papers covering this does he show that it is consistent with GR?”

        Michael answered with a link, and: “H. Alfvén, O. Klein (1963). “Matter-Antimatter Annihilation and Cosmology”. Arkiv för Fysik 23: 187–194.
        H Alfven, Worlds-Antiworlds: Antimatter in Cosmology, 1966, WH Freeman, San Francisco, ISBN 978-0716703174″ and “Do you have a problem with that paper for some reason?”

        * the second is a book, not a paper
        * the first is a paper I was previously unaware of. The paper doesn’t seem to be in ADS (http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/), or Google Scholar, and I was unsuccessful in finding a copy on the internet.

        So, a request to any reader (including Michael): do you have a URL to a copy of that paper (not the abstract)? Or a copy of your own, in PDF form perhaps?

        And to answer Michael directly: As I have never read that paper, I cannot say what sorts of problems, if any I may have with it. As you seem to have read it, may I ask you, how did you obtain a copy? Also, is the paper written in English, or Swedish (not the title, or abstract, but the body of the paper)?

        This, from Michael’s response, is rather, um, ironic: “[Brian is] just picking randomly from various authors of his choosing to create a strawman definition of an “electric universe” that *nobody alive today* within the electric universe community even believes in! What a unethical way to debate the lifes’ work of Wal Thornhill.”

        Why is it ironic?

        Well, the first substantive part of Findlay’s e-book is “Reviewer comments”, and the first such reads: “Tom Findlay’s book is a remarkable contribution from a newcomer to the Electric Universe. He shows the impact that this new and simpler way of seeing the universe can have on a practical man with a keen interest in astronomy. “A Beginner’s View” is easy to read and copiously illustrated. Tom makes a heartfelt plea for individuals to participate in science once more; to use their intuition and common-sense to question the science fiction headlines and gross expenditure on massive projects. After all, history shows most great breakthroughs are made by individuals, most of them outsiders.”

        I’ll leave interested readers to find out for themselves who wrote that fulsome praise of Findlay’s work. And to decide whether that reviewer did, indeed, review the document (before it was e-printed). And whether that reviewer was OK with Findlay’s omission of even a mention of neutrinos, much less solar ones, or flavors, or oscillation, or …

        1. Author

          Yeah, he’s playing Calvinball. If he wants to argue that the three books I used for this post are not representative of EU, he can simply state that. They are the first three recommended books if you go to Amazon and type in “electric universe” but somehow that’s cherry picking. We can also go down a list of topics if he wants. Is relativity valid? Do neutrinos exist? etc. That combined with the “ask a question here, trash talk me on the other forum” means he’s really not interested in a real conversation.

  92. I have not played “Calvinball”, I’ve simply pointed out to you that Thornhill has publicly predicted the existence of neutrinos coming from the solar atmosphere since before I personally even heard of “Electric Universe” theory. I’ve never know a time when Wal Thornhill or Dave Talbott had *not* predicted neutrinos to be coming from the sun. I have no control over what materials that you personally selected as your reference(s), when they were written, how much material they included, yada, yada, yada. All I know is that you have factually misrepresented his model as I have demonstrated to you with Thornhill’s own statements in 2001. I had no idea *why* you misrepresented his model, I just knew that you did misrepresent his model.

    Apparently you happened to picked three specific documents that weren’t inclusive. For whatever reason you chose not to go to Google and type in “Wal Thornhill electric universe neutrino”. As Thornhill’s public comments demonstrate, you have publicly misrepresented his statements. I’m simply offended by that behavior, and I’m sure that he’s a lot more offended than I am.

    I’d much rather you just fix your “zero neutrino” fiasco, and we can move on to redshift/distance predictions in electric universe theory. Shall we?

    1. Author

      Yep, Calvinball, unless you can cite where I’ve specifically stated that Thornhill himself claims there are no solar neutrinos. You’re now claiming EU is Thornhill’s model, which is not what you’ve been claiming until now. Calvinball. You also continue to ignore Jean’s very pointed questions.

      Personally I’d much rather you stop pretending that you’re interested in a rational discussion.

      1. Brian: “Yep, Calvinball, unless you can cite where I’ve specifically stated that Thornhill himself claims there are no solar neutrinos.”

        Michael: Here is specifically where you did it:

        Brian: “There are actually many variations to the Electric Universe model, but the most popular version seems to focus around the book by Thornhill and Talbot listed below. It is this basic model I’ll discuss here, using the references listed at the bottom of the post.”

        Michael: You are claiming to be specifically critiquing the cosmology model that is described by Thornhill and Talbott, but you are erroneously claiming that their model predicts zero neutrino emissions. You may not have “quoted” them specifically, but that just exacerbates the problem! You *should* have quoted them if you were going to ascribe that specific belief to Thornhill and Talbott. The fact that you *didn’t* quote them only makes it worse, not better! Not fixing the problem is worse still, particularly since you now know that your neutrino statement is not true.

        Brian: “You’re now claiming EU is Thornhill’s model, which is not what you’ve been claiming until now.”

        Michael: No I’m not. You’re the one claiming to be critiquing *Thorhill’s* concept of an “Electric Universe”. I’m simply pointing out the errors in your presentation of his beliefs. I didn’t have any real complains about your presentation of Alfven’s version of an “Electric Universe”.

        Brian: “Calvinball. You also continue to ignore Jean’s very pointed questions.”

        Michael: Which one(s) are you interested in specifically? You haven’t responded to anything I’ve posted so far today. There are only so many hours in a day. I have taken the time today to respond to both of you, and I’m trying to be specific and responsive to both of you.

        Brian: “Personally I’d much rather you stop pretending that you’re interested in a rational discussion.”

        Michael: I’m trying very hard to be rational with you Brian, but I cannot just ignore the fact that you inadvertently misrepresented the statements and beliefs of the individuals that you claim to be critiquing. While you may believe that you’re critiquing their electric universe model, you’re apparently just critiquing your very own personal strawman electric universe theory, not the electric universe that Wal and Dave live in. 🙂

        FYI, I’ve been posting my responses at TB only because I find it a little awkward and rather tedious to post to your blog. Worse yet, I can’t edit things for a few minutes the way I can at TB, and I can’t format the quote properly here like I can at TB. I’ll respond to your future posts here out of courtesy to you since that seems to matter to you and I’m trying to be respectful, but if it’s all the same to you, I’ll save myself some time when I respond to Jean and I respond at TB. Is that ok by you? I just like to be able to proofread and fix my spelling mistakes. 🙂

        1. “….You are claiming to be specifically critiquing the cosmology model that is described by Thornhill and Talbott, but you are erroneously claiming that their model predicts zero neutrino emissions….”

          Your own link mentioned in TBs ( http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neutrino-puzzle-is-solved/ ) clearly indicates Thornhill DOES NOT PREDICT NEUTRINO “EMISSIONS”.

          This is what Thornhill states.

          “In the Electric Universe model, there is no antimatter forming antiparticles. An electron and a positron are composed of the same charged sub-particles in different conformations. They come together to form a stable neutrino, emitting most of their orbital energies in the process. They do not annihilate each other. In that sense a neutrino embodies both the electron and the positron. It can have no antiparticle. The bookmakers would be wise not to bet on the Standard Model of particle physics.”

          This word salad statement is wrong given that neutrinos DO HAVE their own antiparticle and positron/electron pairs annihilate each other to form gamma ray photons which is energy conserved and does not need neutrino’s to balance the energy equation.
          Thornhill has hijacked the term “neutrino” to describe “something” that is clearly not a neutrino.

          Even if we ignore this inconvenient truth on the very same page with the Thornhill link you make this comment.
          “For 15 years Wal Thornhill has predicted that the sun would emit the exact number of neutrinos that we observe on Earth……..”

          Seriously do you actually bother reading the links you supply or is this spin doctoring bordering on pure dishonesty?
          I would have expected to see a model that made a theoretical prediction on the neutrino count instead what we have is a poorly constructed popsci type article full of inaccuracies and typical EU cliches.

          1. First, a big thank you to Michael, and to sjastro … the 2001 article by Wal Thornhill is indeed extremely educational.

            While it doesn’t make much sense to focus on this particular 2001 article, in terms of critiquing the Electric Universe (its scope is too narrow, for a start), it certainly provides rich material for showing that the ideas presented are inconsistent, and that – yet again – whatever “the electric Sun model” (and by Thornhill’s own terms, “the Electric Universe model” too) is, it is not science. And it’s worth adding that if you were to join TBF, and say this, you would be instantly and permanently banned.

            “every cause/effect claim that is associated with EU/PC theory has the potential of being tested in the lab under controlled conditions” – Michael Mozina, in a TBF post, earlier this week.

            Per Thornhill, neutrinos are produced when electrons and positrons collide. Do they? Has this idea been tested, in the lab under controlled conditions? Yes! By LEP (Large Electron-Positron Collider), among others. Were neutrinos observed being produced when the electrons and positrons collided? Not that I have heard (do you know otherwise, Michael?). And if such neutrinos had been observed, you’d certainly have heard about it.

            According to Thornhill, solar neutrinos – all ~1.8 x 10^38 per second of them – are generated “in the photospheric lightning discharges”. Should be easy enough to test in the lab under controlled conditions, right? Simulate these “photospheric lightning discharges” in a big container, and count the neutrinos generated (detection might be done with a variant of what Cowan and Reines used, in 1956, for the first direct detection of neutrinos). Right Michael?

        2. I hadn’t intended to write any more, but this is really beyond the pale (smilie omitted):

          Michael: “I’m trying very hard to be rational with you Brian, but I cannot just ignore the fact that you inadvertently misrepresented the statements and beliefs of the individuals that you claim to be critiquing. While you may believe that you’re critiquing their electric universe model, you’re apparently just critiquing your very own personal strawman electric universe theory, not the electric universe that Wal and Dave live in.”

          I cannot make sense of this, Michael; it seems you and I are reading two completely different documents!

          The blog post we are writing comments on is based on three, clearly stated, primary sources: a book by Thornhill and Talbot, a book by Findlay, and a book by Scott. Each source claims to describe “the Electric Universe”. Each is many hundred pages long. The blog post is very clear about its scope; it is not intended to be an exhaustive critique, and says so explicitly. Solar neutrinos is just one aspect discussed, and the discussion comprises just one para (out of dozens). Findlay’s book – which you had not even read until yesterday! – contains no mention of solar neutrinos, and is clear that the Sun is “powered by electricity” (to use a phrase by an earlier poster, here), not fusion. You also, apparently, have not read the Thornhill and Talbot book, so you do not know what’s in it, re solar neutrinos, whether they are produced by fusion/electricity/something else/some combo, etc.

          Re Scott: in TBF, you wrote “I didn’t see anything to suggest that Scott would discuss solar neutrinos, and then turn right around and “predict” zero neutrinos.” OK … so what, specifically, does Scott say re how the observed flux of ~1.8 x 10^38 neutrinos per second (assume Thornhill’s statement is correct) is produced, in/on the Sun? More specifically, what does he say about neutrino production, in/on the Sun, by physical processes other than fusion?

          So, in summary:

          * does this blog post claim to be a comprehensive critique of Thornhill’s “electric Sun model”? No
          * does any of the four authors (Findlay, Scott, Talbot, Thornhill) claim, in the three sources cited, that neutrinos are produced in physical processes other than fusion? Apparently not
          * does any author claim that the Sun is powered by anything other than electricity? Apparently not

        3. Author

          So you admit you’ve accused me falsely. Given the references I used for the post, none of them seem make a prediction about non-fusion neutrinos, and the one easily accessed reference strongly declares no solar fusion and completely ignores neutrinos.

          Let’s move on to Jean’s questions, starting with this one:

          How, in detail, can starlight scattered by plasma produce a black body spectrum?

          Remember you need to provide clearly cited references that can be accessed by readers. You also need to post your response here, since you specifically came here to incite a conversation.

    2. Michael, simple question: have you read “The Electric Universe” by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbot?

      Follow up question: if so, and if you have a copy handy, can you please give the chapter, page number, para (etc) in that primary source of where Wallace Thornhill presents his ideas on solar neutrinos, how they are produced (generated), in what flavors, etc? I am keen to understand how he presents “the Sun is powered by electricity” (to paraphrase a prolific EU proponent, and poster here) which leads to the production of the observed flux of neutrinos … *in that book*.

      In case you do not have a copy of this book handy, I’m sure that many of the members of TBF do, and would welcome the opportunity to answer questions about where, in this book, Thornhill discusses neutrinos, so why not ask them? For avoidance of doubt, I cannot, not being a member. Further, I could not join, seeing as how it is the explicit policy of TBF to instantly, and permanently, ban any member who says “the EU is pseudoscience” (or similar). Scruples, you know …

      I’m quite interested in “redshift/distance predictions in electric universe theory”, and think we can discuss that any time, so why not kick such a discussion off? And if I may, I’ll start with something that’s always puzzled me: what, in “the EU/PC cosmology model” (your term) is the redshift of the CMB (or its range of redshifts)? Also, using the EU/PC cosmological model, how does one go about making an estimate of an object’s intrinsic redshift (a QSO, say), based on its UV and/or optical and/or IR spectrum?

  93. I am also interested in which of the several “electric universe theories” has a mathematical model that makes “redshift/distance predictions”.
    Hopefully it is not a revamp of what the blog disposes of – as galaxies age they somehow go redder exactly as expected in an expanding universe.
    I do know that EU proponents tend to latch on to unrelated non-mainstream explanations so maybe tired light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light)?
    There is Ari Brynjolfsson’s “plasma redshift” non-science in some pre-prints that he thinks can explain coronal heating, the CMB, etc. This is photons Compton scattering in dense electron plasmas with obvious failures, e.g. images of distant galaxies will blur, Compton scattering depends on frequency and can even blue shift photons!
    Worse will be bringing up Arp’s now invalid discordant redshift.

  94. Talking about EU predictions, there is a page of “Confirmed” Predictions (http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm). The predictions were mostly made by Thornhill and are quite vague (How much is an “abundance of water”?). The vague ones are automatically failures.
    Starts with the 2005 Deep Impact mission to the Tempel 1 comet.
    “Missing water” prediction is “confirmed” by detecting water ejected by the impact!
    “Comet breakup” prediction is “confirmed” by Tempel 1 not breaking up!
    “Advance flash” (before impact) prediction is “confirmed” by what turns out to be a flash after impact!
    “Energy release” prediction is “confirmed” by “surprising” comment by a scientist (press release?)
    “Sheath around impactor” prediction is “confirmed” by no evidence of a sheath – just the incredibility that the impactor camera should have delivered images up to impact (it stopped 3 seconds before)
    “System failure” of guidance system prediction is “confirmed” by no cited failure of the guidance system!
    “High-energy explosion” prediction is “confirmed” by the surprise of observers!
    “Multiple craters” from multiple flashes prediction is “confirmed” by the craters from ejecta!
    “Water in coma” prediction is “confirmed” by the authors stating their prediction about OH!
    “Fine dust” (little or no dust on the nucleus) prediction is “confirmed” by lots of dust being blown off in the impact!
    etc.
    Stardust:
    “Subsurface composition” prediction does not exist! Sounds like “Stardust will only collect planetary dust” which is a failure since Stardust did not. Some grains were high temperature, i.e. formed in the inner solar system (not on planets). No limestone or other planetary material from comets being blasted from the Earth in the last couple of thousand of years!
    etc.
    Lots of failures and a few lies, e.g. a flash before impact is not confirmed by a flash after impact.

  95. Brian: You also continue to ignore Jean’s very pointed questions.

    Michael: Which one(s) are you interested in specifically?

    I’ll leave it to Brian to give you an answer, Michael, but for me, right now, there are just three important ones. I’ll ask you to please prioritize your answers by addressing these first.

    1) Do you have a source which shows what the production (generation) rate is, of (anti-)neutrinos of each different flavor, in (by) lightning discharges (of any kind)? If so, please provide it. I am particularly interested in sources whose results are based on experiments done in the lab, under controlled conditions.

    2) How, in detail, can starlight scattered by plasma produce a black body spectrum?

    3) How are solar neutrinos produced (generated) in “a Birkeland (internally powered) solar model”?

    For avoidance of doubt, your TBF response to this last question does not answer it (you wrote “Birkeland assumed that the sun was internally powered by a “transmutation of elements”. I’d assume the power source is fusion and it’s occurring throughout the sun, as well as the atmosphere above the cathode surface.”)

  96. Brian: So you admit you’ve accused me falsely.
    Michael: No. Where in the huge electric universe did you get that idea?  No Brian, I accused you correctly.
    Michael: I’ve already shown you Wal’s own statements from 15 years ago which specific predict the exact same number of neutrinos as the standard model, with the emissions coming from the surface of the sun. Since you claimed to have used Scott’s book as a reference, I will now have you turn to page 106 where you will find Scott’s explanation of where neutrinos come from in his anode tufting model, and he explains why neutrinos vary over time:
    Scott: The neutrino flux from the sun seems to vary inversely with sunspot number. This is not unexpected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is the z-ping-produced fusion occurring in the double layer (DL) – and sunspots are the locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur.
    Michael: So there you have it. Both Scott and Thornhill predicted that the source of neutrinos from the sun are z-pinch processes in plasma near the surface. They both predict variation in neutrino output as a result of electric current changes over time. It’s the exact same model of neutrino production, and I’ve now quoted both primary authors for you. As you can see Brian, I *correctly* accused you of misrepresenting their work. Both of the primary authors that you selected specifically refute your erroneous claim about a prediction of zero neutrinos. Both authors predicted that z-pinch processes in the solar atmosphere produce fusion processes which emit neutrinos just as my own published paper supports and *documents*. All three documents that I have handed to you all predict that fusion occurs in the solar atmosphere. You’re wrong based on the work (some of it published) of three different EU/PC references: Thornhill, Scott, Mozina.
    Brian: Given the references I used for the post, none of them seem make a prediction about non-fusion neutrinos,
    Michael: That’s absolutely, positively false as the quote from Scott demonstrates. He names the emission method (z-pinch processes in plasma), the location of the neutrino emissions (photosphere/chromosphere) and he predicts variation in neutrino emissions due to current flow changes, just like Thornhill. It’s the same exact model. Both authors predict that fusion in the solar atmosphere will emit neutrinos and so did I.
    Brian:……and the one easily accessed reference strongly declares no solar fusion and completely ignores neutrinos.
    Michael: Demonstrate that claim for us. Where *specifically* in that very long PDF did the author ever declare that the whole sun experiences “no solar fusion” at all? You seem to be confusing the idea of a lack of fusion in the *core* with the concept of a lack of fusion *anywhere*. Since the other two authors do predict neutrinos due to fusion in the upper atmosphere of the sun, I suspect that the last author did too. You just made another handwavy allegation without a page number citation. I need a page number and paragraph to support your claim that anyone predicted that there is no solar fusion *anywhere* near the sun. I don’t believe you. Scott’s book directly refuses that statement, as did the quote from Thornhill.
    Brian: Let’s move on to Jean’s questions, starting with this one:
    Michael: When are you going to deal with my posts, and your neutrino fiasco Brian? I’ve waited for an explanation for quite awhile now, I’ve provided you with three refutations of your claim, one of the published. I’ve answered your questions and lots of Jean’s unrelated questions too. When are you going to admit that a prediction of a lack of fusion in the core does not mean that the sun experiences no fusion anywhere? You’re mispresenting that claim too!
    Brian: How, in detail, can starlight scattered by plasma produce a black body spectrum?
    Michael: How in the universe could Eddington’s model *not* produce a black body spectrum over an infinite distance with a little carbon dust out there?
    Brian: Remember you need to provide clearly cited references that can be accessed by readers. You also need to post your response here, since you specifically came here to incite a conversation.
    Michael: Actually Brian you didn’t provide me with a clearly cited reference that included any page numbers or paragraphs as I have done for you. You handed me three documents, and one of them I own. The book I own refutes your claim about their being “no fusion” anywhere. I cited the page number for you (106). I cited the exact paragraph for you too. Where in that huge 90+ page PDF file did you see the prediction that the sun experiences no fusion anywhere?

    1. Michael: “I’ve already shown you Wal’s own statements from 15 years ago which specific predict the exact same number of neutrinos as the standard model”

      Um, no. Unless you have another source. There’s no such “prediction” in Wal Thornhill’s 13 August, 2001 “Solar neutrino puzzle is solved?” Holoscience document.

      It’d be quite exciting if he had … we could all, then, check his logic, and calculations, to confirm – independently – such a remarkable prediction.

      Thornhill: “The electric Sun model expects far more complex heavy element synthesis to take place in the natural particle accelerators in the photospheric lightning discharges. In that case the various neutrino “flavours” are all generated on the Sun”
      Scott (per Michael): “This is not unexpected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is the z-ping-produced fusion occurring in the double layer (DL)” [I assume “ping” is a mistype for “pinch”]
      Michael: “Both Scott and Thornhill predicted that the source of neutrinos from the sun are z-pinch processes in plasma near the surface”

      Hmm. I wonder how you, Michael, were able to equate “the natural particle accelerators in the photospheric lightning discharges” with “z-pinch-produced fusion occurring in the double layer”? As far as I know, lightning has nothing to do with double layers, nor z-pinches.

      But not to worry; as you said, “every cause/effect claim that is associated with EU/PC theory has the potential of being tested in the lab under controlled conditions”, and as Thornhill and Scott have been working on this for at least 15 years (I read somewhat that Thornhill has been working on the EU, full-time?, for over 30 years), I’m sure they have found reliable reports of fusion taking place in lightning discharges and in z-pinches. And not just any old fusion, but nuclear processes of the “complex heavy element synthesis” kind.

      Right Michael?

      Myself, I rather doubt there is any such evidence.

      Fusion of hydrogen (various isotopes) in a z-pinch to produce helium? Quite plausible, and may even have been demonstrated. However, such fusion would be accompanied by an awful lot of gammas, which would be easily detected if such fusion took place on, or near, the surface of the Sun, at rates sufficient to produce the observed neutrino flux (it hasn’t). But fusion to create heavy elements? That would be quite remarkable!

      What about “natural particle accelerators”, whether or not there are any z-pinches?

      Well, nature’s high energy particles – cosmic rays – do occasionally induce something like fusion, but mostly they break nuclei apart (it’s called “cosmic ray spallation”). The heavy elements produced in labs, using particle accelerators, do so by being extremely fine-tuned (and most collisions result in spallation or fission, not fusion). There’s also all the gamma radiation too, none of which is observed (but perhaps Michael has a credible source which says otherwise?).

      In short, it seems that both Thornhill and Scott, far from making predictions, are spinning tall tales, or writing science fiction; at the very least they seem quite unconcerned with establishing consistency with the vast body of published papers on heavy element synthesis, z-pinches, particle accelerators, double layers, lightning, discharges, and no doubt much more.

      Further, it seems that Michael seems equally unconcerned about the lack of consistency, and especially with the (apparent) lack of in-the-lab-under-controlled-conditions tests.

  97. I give up with Findlay….

    That is a 195 page PDF that seems more focused on cosmology that on solar physics. While it includes citations to Scott and Wal, it really isn’t that specific about solar physics as far as I could tell. Since you did a search on neutrinos and came up empty, I did a search for “no fusion”, “zero fusion” and came up entirely empty too. Where in the world in that 195 page monster of a paper did Findlay claim that the sun experiences no fusion of any kind, anywhere, anytime?

    This is your accusation, so you owe me a page number and a paragraph.

    1. Author

      Explain in detail how starlight scattered by plasma produces a black body spectrum first, and then I’ll give you a page, paragraph and word citation.

  98. Nice diversion to avoid dealing with your neutrino fiasco Hobbs. Where did Findlay claim that the sun experiences no fusion around the photosphere anywhere anytime Hobbs? 🙂

    Page number and paragraph please. 🙂

    Care to explain Scott’s predictions of fusion in z-pinch processes in the photosphere on page 106 for us Hobbs?

    1. Author

      You clearly haven’t even read the comments on this very post. Nearly 400 comments on this post, and I’m tired of answering the same questions for every EU scrub that can’t be bothered to read.

  99. Here’s the deal Brian:

    I’ve provided you with two *highly specific* quotes related to neutrino production, from both Thornhill *and* Scott that both directly refute your claim that the sun is predicted to emit zero neutrinos in their solar model. The citation from page 106 in Scott’s book is one of the references that you claimed to have used as a reference in your evaluation. You have not provided me any similar quote, including page number and paragraph of Findlay, Thornhill or Scott saying anything that contradicts the statements or Thornhill or Scott with respect to predictions of neutrino emissions from plasma pinch processes in the photosphere. Please provide us with a quote from Findlay that claims that the sun experiences “zero” fusion, or better yet, just fix your error already!

    IMO your request for answers to other unrelated topics is a pure diversion to avoid dealing with your mistake related to neutrino predictions from a Juergen’s solar model.

    1. Michael, you might want to reflect a bit on the context here.

      This is a blog site, and we are commenting on a particular blog post. There are many hundred such comments, whose length (number of words) substantially exceeds the word-count of the blog post itself. And Brian is the owner.

      You have found, and cited, some material on the production (generation) of solar neutrinos within the Electric Universe (I’ll use “the EU” for short), by two authors. Good! Let’s discuss it!!

      In your – many, quite lengthy – posts in TBF, you have introduced a wide range of topics, or aspects, of the EU, some of which are among those covered in the blog post (however briefly) but most are not. Good! Let’s discuss them!!

      If you’ve read all the comments here, I think you’ll find that you are almost unique! You have expressed a strong desire to discuss the actual content of the EU!! And have kicked off just such discussions!!! Only Paul (a.k.a. comingfrom) has done so before, beyond an exchange or three (not counting such discussions/exchanges which are primarily about censorship, bias, dogma, etc; there are lots of those). And he clearly lacked your deep understanding of the EU.

      – – –

      In answer to “How, in detail, can starlight scattered by plasma produce a black body spectrum?”, you wrote: “How in the universe could Eddington’s model *not* produce a black body spectrum over an infinite distance with a little carbon dust out there?”

      Michael, please consider the context.

      While the question was certainly triggered by your reference to some result by Eddington (which I assume is correct; I’ve not checked it), it is not about anything Eddington wrote, nor any “Eddington’s model”. It is a general question, based entirely on what you wrote.

      Context again: I think I read that you have been banned from the ISF and the CQ forum, and few people like me would attempt to post on TBF (and Brian already said he would not join). Ditto Christian Mingle (I think I read, in one of your TBF posts, that you would like discussions to be held there; apologies if I mis-remembered). This, then, is a venue where you have an excellent opportunity to discuss the EU, with at least some people who are both interested and prepared to ask good, critical questions.

      So, how, in detail, can starlight scattered by plasma – not carbon dust – produce a black body spectrum?

  100. EU Scrub? What didn’t I read?

    I can’t find any *specific* citation you’ve posted *anywhere* in this thread with respect to neutrino emissions. I did find this (erroneous) claim however:

    “30 May 2016
    Reply
    Brian Koberlein

    The PDF I linked to in the post seems to be the only concise introduction to EU. It is praised by both Talbot and Scott as being a clear and accurate introduction to EU. Unfortunately when you read the PDF and conclude that “no fusion occurs” means no neutrinos they cry foul and say the PDF doesn’t represent EU accurately. I’ve asked for an updated summary for more than a year, but nothing yet. So the PDF link is about all there is.

    You’re right, though, no equations, because “math is bad, mkay?“

    I just opened the PDF in question, and I did a search for “no fusion occurs”. Nothing. Where in the 195 page PDF can I find that quote?

    1. Author

      Huh, I just Googled “Michael Mozina possesses basic reading skills” and it produced no results anywhere on the internet. I guess you’re illiterate…

      To be honest, I don’t think you’re illiterate. I think you clearly understand that Findlay argues against stellar fusion in any form, but have decided to reduce your argument to bad phrase searches. Read Findlay, don’t read him, I really don’t care. But if you can’t bother to read or at the very least do proper keyword searches, then you’re clearly beyond redemption.