Again your dismissive tactic when a peer reviewed paper is presented.
Again, I don't have to.
This is not the man's specialty. I am not going to go through the hours of work necessary to debunk garbage that could not pass peer review. And peer review is only the first step to acceptance.
I don't have to. The fact that he could not get any phyicist to accept it speaks volumes.
Yes, even people that can write peer reviewed papers can go crazy at times.
Why didn't he get that work peer reviewed? He probably knows that he is wrong.
Justa, how has the current model been "shown to be wrong"?
Birkeland knew and understood more about *solar* physics, *and* more about the basic physics of plasma that most astronomers do to this day! He created a *working model* of his theory, and with it he *successfully predicted* the existence of both types of high speed charged particles in solar wind, polar jets, electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, coronal loops, cathode rays, and pretty much everything we observe today in modern solar satellite images of the sun.The failures of EU are legion, its successes, almost nonexistent. That is why physicists ignore it.
I don't have to. The fact that he could not get any phyicist to accept it speaks volumes.
Yes, SZ hand-waves away anything that does not agree with his dogmatic beliefs, while at the same time never presenting anything but denial.
Bingo!
Then, you will surely appreciate these peer reviewed papers ...Show me some evidence that applies to the debate at hand and I will address it.
....
the bullet cluster for example,
Wrong, as usual.
I handwave arguments away that are handwaved in.
How about we start with all those "revelations" of stellar miscounts and the fact the galaxies were brighter than you 'estimated' in 2006? It's not exactly like we don't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight since 2006 when they "guestimated" the mass around the galaxies themselves.Show me some evidence that applies to the debate at hand and I will address it.
How about all those experiments at LHC and LUX and with electrons that falsified your claims? You're just going to bury your head in the sands of pure denial again?So far all you and yours has ever managed to do is to at best show some very questionable at best peer reviewed articles from very weak journals that never ever caught on.
No I didn't. I read the paper several times. I explained how and why you underestimated the mass in that image too, based on *mainstream* published papers!Meanwhile you either misunderstand articles, the evidence from the bullet cluster for example, or you try to handwave it away yourself.
Apparently your *entire* belief systems rests upon a "three for one" logical fallacy extravaganza.
You're basically pulling an appeal to authority fallacy, combined with an appeal to popularity fallacy.
The "hat trick" is the use of the term "any", as though *no other physicists in the entire world embrace PC/EU theory, which is of course not true. The whole thing is one circular feedback loop.
To this day your entire lot of mainstream "physicists" cannot come *close* to duplicating *any* of the *many* actual *successful predictions* that Birkeland made over 100 years ago, and they'll *absolutely* never do it without electricity.
Yes, with his attitude we would still believe that the Milky-way was the only galaxy in existence, since all of astronomy once believed that, until a lone observation proved them all wrong. As a matter of fact every theory we currently have was born during that period of belief.
FYI, there's a "dirty little secret" in Lambda-CDM related to 'exotic matter'. It's not widely understood that their nucleosynthesis claims *require* a form of 'exotic' matter. It doesn't actually work out well if all the matter is *ordinary* baryonic matter, in fact it pretty much topples the whole mathematical house of cards.
There's a common misconception that the mainstream claim of 'dark matter' comes without strings, or claims. That's false. They cannot just be content with discovering only more ordinary baryonic matter. They *require* that "dark matter" be in an exotic form of matter that has never yet been seen on Earth, *despite* all those recent lab failures.
No. Actually you have a bad habit of handwaving out "peer reviewed" material on a whim, and typically based on a random unpublished website reference.
How about we start with all those "revelations" of stellar miscounts and the fact the galaxies were brighter than you 'estimated' in 2006? It's not exactly like we don't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight since 2006 when they "guestimated" the mass around the galaxies themselves.
Guess what we learned since then? In 2008 it was revealed that the universe is actually *twice as bright* as we first 'guestimated'. More light is being deflected in the inelastic scattering processes taking place in the plasma and dust than you expected.
2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews
You underestimated the the mass of the larger stars by something like 20% in that issue alone, even based on the *mainstream* position.
The next year we discovered that you completely botched the percentage of small stars to larger ones.
Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
You just "missed it" by a little, just a *factor of four*!
I've also watched the whole black hole debate go from the belief that only relatively few galaxies had black holes on them, to understand that most if not all of them probably do have them, and they've been consistently "surprised" by how big they are:
Gigantic Black Holes Just Got Even Bigger | Ultramassive Black Holes | Space.com
Now admittedly, they don't account for electrical activity, so they may actually be overestimating them a bit, but they're definitely bigger than we first assumed.
That's at *least* three different ways we know for a fact that the galaxy mass estimates were off in 2006, and we haven't even talked about all that million degree plasma they found in 2012.
NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas
There's more mass in that million degree plasma *alone* than all the stars in the entirely galaxy, and we haven't even talked about *cooler dust*!
Now admittedly, the mainstream knew it was missing about half the baryonic mass it assumed was there, so the finding of all that million degree hot plasma doesn't itself push them over budget. If however you add in those miscounts of stars, and the underestimation of the sizes of larger stars however, and start talking about non ionized *dust particles* in space, it's a whole other ballgame. They're actually *over* budget at this point.
How about all those experiments at LHC and LUX and with electrons that falsified your claims? You're just going to bury your head in the sands of pure denial again?
No I didn't. I read the paper several times. I explained how and why you underestimated the mass in that image too, based on *mainstream* published papers!
It's not my personal fault that the mainstream keeps *destroying* their own belief system on a regular basis. It's not my fault they overestimated the speed of convection either.
You have a bigger problem on your hands that just the EU/PC community. The revelations from the lab and from the mainstream itself haven't been exactly 'kind' to your beliefs, to say the least. Unless LHC comes up with something next year, we might me see a wholesale bailout from exotic matter theories. Then what? More denial? More "exotic matter of the gaps" claims anyway?
It is not really a secret. Nor is their belief a "house of cards".
Your so called theory is reactive at best and still fails on many observed phenomena that it has no explanation for.
For example the "dirty little secret" explains why we observe the relative proportions of hydrogen, helium, and lithium formed shortly after the Big Bang. It also explains the observed background radiation better than the EU does.
There are problems with the theory. But it is a much more functional theory than EU.
We could start with this thread that explains some of EU's short comings:
Neutrino Dreaming: The Electric Universe Theory Debunked
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?