Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy! (Moved)

[mzungu]

I didn't say it *couldn't* happen. I'd just need to see it happen to believe it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ9IZF8Qdno

 

[Michael]

Oy Vey, what an ignorant and lame interview.

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://podcast.sjrdesign.net/media/podcasts/PseudoAstro_116.mp3

I actually did listen to Bridgman's "electric sun" nonsense and heard him blow off Birkeland's *internally* powered solar model based on a completely *bogus* claim that Birkeland himself said (without any quote whatsoever) that he 'couldn't get it to work', at least according to Bridgman. It's utterly outrageous that Bridgman never even bothered to quote Birkeland from his work or give any hint about what he meant!

Since Birkeland's solar model *absolutely did* work very successfully to simulate *both* types of charged particles in solar wind, polar jets, coronal loops, cathode rays, etc, I would have to *assume* what Bridgman is talking about is Birkeland's inability to personally recreate the *internal power supply* of the sun in his lab!

Bridgman however never even *mentioned* that little fact, nor did he mention any of the things that Birkeland *did* successfully recreate in the lab, nor did Bridgman give Birkeland any credit for correctly predicting *fusion/fission* before it was actually discovered! Birkeland used the term 'transmutation of elements'. That is the only part of Birleland's solar model that he couldn't personally recreate in the lab, and we *still* cannot generate *sustained* fusion in the lab even today!

Never during the interview did Bridgman even *mention* Alfven's "electric sun" model? All I can say is: Wow! Talk about unprofessional.

Bridgman basically "blows off" the whole concept of an *internally* powered electric solar model simply because he *cannot handle* an internally powered 'electric sun' model. His cheesy "death by electric universe" calculations are only applicable *if* the sun is 100 percent externally powered. He therefore simply *ignores* every single 'electric sun' model ever proposed that is based primarily on *internally* powered processes.

His "shot" at Juergen's anode solar model about electrons hitting the backside of the Earth was a riot! It's called "aurora" Dr. Bridgman. We see it all the time. Contrary to your oversimplified notion of moving plasma moving in straight lines near stationary magnetic fields, the protons and electrons don't flow in nice little straight lines, they flow into the Earth along the *flow patterns" that are created by the circuits in the magnetosphere that dump current into the aurora. What a *lame* argument that was.

Obviously the biggest problem with EU/PC acceptance is the *pure ignorance* factor. Even the fact he calls Juergen's model "one of the first/early' solar models is a total joke. Both Birkeland *and* Alfven's "electric sun" models are *older* than Juergen's model and unlike the 'johnny come lately" version, the *earlier* versions of "electric suns" were *internally* powered!

The arrogance combined with the near total ignorance of Alfven's "electric sun" model, and misinformation about Birkeland's model was just sad to listen to. It's clear that the biggest hurdle for the acceptance of EU/PC theory is simply pure ignorance of the concept inside of mainstream circles. They know almost *nothing* about it, and half of what they *think* they know about the topic is complete nonsense.

 

[SelfSim]

Oy Vey, what an ignorant and lame interview.
{Links}
I actually did listen to Bridgman's "electric sun" nonsense and heard him blow off Birkeland's *internally* powered solar model based on a completely *bogus* claim that Birkeland himself said (without any quote whatsoever) that he 'couldn't get it to work', at least according to Bridgman. It's utterly outrageous that Bridgman never even bothered to quote Birkeland from his work or give any hint about what he meant!

Since Birkeland's solar model *absolutely did* work very successfully to simulate *both* types of charged particles in solar wind, polar jets, coronal loops, cathode rays, etc, I would have to *assume* what Bridgman is talking about is Birkeland's inability to personally recreate the *internal power supply* of the sun in his lab!

Bridgman however never even *mentioned* that little fact, nor did he mention any of the things that Birkeland *did* successfully recreate in the lab, nor did Bridgman give Birkeland any credit for correctly predicting *fusion/fission* before it was actually discovered! Birkeland used the term 'transmutation of elements'. That is the only part of Birleland's solar model that he couldn't personally recreate in the lab, and we *still* cannot generate *sustained* fusion in the lab even today!

Never during the interview did Bridgman even *mention* Alfven's "electric sun" model? All I can say is: Wow! Talk about unprofessional.

Bridgman basically "blows off" the whole concept of an *internally* powered electric solar model simply because he *cannot handle* an internally powered 'electric sun' model. His cheesy "death by electric universe" calculations are only applicable *if* the sun is 100 percent externally powered. He therefore simply *ignores* every single 'electric sun' model ever proposed that is based primarily on *internally* powered processes.

His "shot" at Juergen's anode solar model about electrons hitting the backside of the Earth was a riot! It's called "aurora" Dr. Bridgman. We see it all the time. Contrary to your oversimplified notion of moving plasma moving in straight lines near stationary magnetic fields, the protons and electrons don't flow in nice little straight lines, they flow into the Earth along the *flow patterns" that are created by the circuits in the magnetosphere that dump current into the aurora. What a *lame* argument that was.

Obviously the biggest problem with EU/PC acceptance is the *pure ignorance* factor. Even the fact he calls Juergen's model "one of the first/early' solar models is a total joke. Both Birkeland *and* Alfven's "electric sun" models are *older* than Juergen's model and unlike the 'johnny come lately" version, the *earlier* versions of "electric suns" were *internally* powered!

The arrogance combined with the near total ignorance of Alfven's "electric sun" model, and misinformation about Birkeland's model was just sad to listen to. It's clear that the biggest hurdle for the acceptance of EU/PC theory is simply pure ignorance of the concept inside of mainstream circles. They know almost *nothing* about it, and half of what they *think* they know about the topic is complete nonsense.

Aww .. poor Michael!
... "Why doesn't anyone listen to my Demi-Gods??"

Now, enough of that! ...

Out of curiosity ... care to explain what the emboldened and underlined word salad (above) is supposed to mean?

Oh and yeah .. I dropped Bridgman a post on his Blog ... just to give him a 'heads-up'.

 

[lesliedellow]

I wonder who brought this thread back from the grave? As if we need ask.

 

[Michael]

Aww .. poor Michael!
... "Why doesn't anyone listen to my Demi-Gods??"

Now, enough of that! ...

Pfft. I believe in but one *highly visible* living being called the universe. You're the only one of us that is continuously praying to a pantheon of dead or impotent on Earth invisible sky demi-deities.

Out of curiosity ... care to explain what the emboldened and underlined word salad (above) is supposed to mean?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A Three Ring Circuit Model OfThe Magnetosphere.pdf

Not that you'll actually take any time to read it, let alone make any attempt to *understand* it.

Oh and yeah .. I dropped Bridgman a post on his Blog ... just to give him a 'heads-up'.

Ya, I've done that several times myself in the past and invited him by email too. Alas I don't think he can handle an open debate where his nonsense is busted. His commentary about Birkeland claiming "he couldn't get it to work" was a blatant example of pure disinformation. Birkeland's model *did work*. Using that model he both simulated and successfully *predicted* the existence of both types of high speed charged particles in solar wind, cathode rays being emitted from the sun, coronal loops, electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, polar 'jets' streaming from the sun, and virtually every important observation that is seen today in modern satellite imagery of the solar atmosphere.

The only thing that Birkeland could not replicate in his lab is an internal sustained "transmutation of elements" for his power source as he presupposed was the case for the sun. He had to rely on batteries. Big deal. To this very day we still cannot replicate sustained fusion process in the lab, so by Bridgman's logic, the mainstream model is also a *horrific failure*, just like Birkeland's model.

Bridgman simply could not handle an open and honest scientific debate on this topic. It's much easier for him to ignorantly 'preach on high' from the safety of his own blog, and mp3 files.

 

[Michael]

I wonder who brought this thread back from the grave? As if we need ask.

Blame Bridgman. As long as he continues to post his nonsense about electric sun theories, I'll continue to publicly bust him over his false claims.

 

[Michael]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ9IZF8Qdno

Um, what does that have to do with LHC producing "micro" sized "black holes"?

FYI, had you ever actually *read* any of my papers, you'd already know that I personally have no problem with the concept of a massively heavy object located at the core of every galaxy, in fact I *assume* that is the case!

Oy Vey. You guys simply refuse to educate yourselves and you blame me for it.

 

[florida2]

I simply don't buy the concept of 'infinite density', and therefore I don't buy the concept of 'tiny' black holes. You'd need a lot of mass to create an event horizon around an object.

Pretty much anything can become a black hole if it is dense enough. Even a human could become a black hole in theory

In fact, anything can as long as it is above the Planck mass

Planck mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Michael]

Pretty much anything can become a black hole if it is dense enough. Even a human could become a black hole in theory

In fact, anything can as long as it is above the Planck mass

Planck mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, like I said, I can't dismiss the possibility of a microscopic compacted mass object forming from a collision of atoms, but I would have to see one form to believe that it's physically possible. The sun generates many high energy events in the solar atmosphere and collides particles together all the time. I simply see no evidence that collision events between atoms result in 'black holes' of any size. I'd assume that the Pauli exclusion principle prevails in such interactions and prevents such a thing from occurring.

 

[SelfSim]

Pfft. I believe in but one *highly visible* living being called the universe. You're the only one of us that is continuously praying to a pantheon of dead or impotent on Earth invisible sky demi-deities.

And how exactly did you come to that conclusion (ie: the underlined statement above)?

Ya see, in the first statement above, you have conceded your key conceptual problem ... you actually believe in this "but one *highly visible* living being called the universe" ... when no-one has forced you into believing anything. You are the one who has chosen to believe in this. Projecting your need for belief onto me, is then your next mistake. There are numerous others you then go on to commit ...

His "shot" at Juergen's anode solar model about electrons hitting the backside of the Earth was a riot! It's called "aurora" Dr. Bridgman. We see it all the time. Contrary to your oversimplified notion of moving plasma moving in straight lines near stationary magnetic fields, the protons and electrons don't flow in nice little straight lines, they flow into the Earth along the *flow patterns" that are created by the circuits in the magnetosphere that dump current into the aurora.

Out of curiosity ... care to explain what the emboldened and underlined word salad (above) is supposed to mean?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A Three Ring Circuit Model OfThe Magnetosphere.pdf
Not that you'll actually take any time to read it, let alone make any attempt to *understand* it.

Again, we have yet another series of complete mistakes by Michael.

Firstly, the Whipple/McIlwain/Alfven's model is not Juergen's model (which is what Bridgman was talking about).

Secondly, they make no claims in this paper, on the reality or otherwise, of the claims you alone make. (In the bold and underlined words above). In fact, they explicitly point out:

We do not address the problem of how these currents are obtained in a self-consistent manner from the interaction of the solar wind and magnetospheric plasmas but instead we start with a simple model and hope that successive approximations will lead to a consistent description."

... All of which was written in 1980.

So then your words morph what they had to say into reality.

So, I'll ask the question again, seeing as you are the one who has apparently turned their model into reality, would you please explain what you meant .. in your own words? (With particular emphasis please, on just exactly how these three ring circuits arise in the first place).

 

[florida2]

Well, like I said, I can't dismiss the possibility of a microscopic compacted mass object forming from a collision of atoms, but I would have to see one form to believe that it's physically possible. The sun generates many high energy events in the solar atmosphere and collides particles together all the time. I simply see no evidence that collision events between atoms result in 'black holes' of any size. I'd assume that the Pauli exclusion principle prevails in such interactions and prevents such a thing from occurring.

It is possible, but it would require 10 to the 21 GeV which is billions of times greater than can be achieved in the LHC with the collisions it does. So it's theoretically possible but not practical.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is possible, but it would require 10 to the 21 GeV which is billions of times greater than can be achieved in the LHC with the collisions it does. So it's theoretically possible but not practical.

And hence without huge Birkeland Currents in space, where ever do you get the required energy to produce such acceleration and force???? So you need "billions of times greater than can be achieved in the LHC with the collisions it does" but then want to ignore energetic interactions in space, that must be billions of times more powerful as well to supply the energy needed to create your Fairie Dust.And how does that occur without that accelerator to accelerate and guide the particles until they manage to collide at the required energies?

We resorting to imagination and things never observed now as scientific evidence??

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oy Vey, what an ignorant and lame interview.

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://podcast.sjrdesign.net/media/podcasts/PseudoAstro_116.mp3

I actually did listen to Bridgman's "electric sun" nonsense and heard him blow off Birkeland's *internally* powered solar model based on a completely *bogus* claim that Birkeland himself said (without any quote whatsoever) that he 'couldn't get it to work', at least according to Bridgman. It's utterly outrageous that Bridgman never even bothered to quote Birkeland from his work or give any hint about what he meant!

Since Birkeland's solar model *absolutely did* work very successfully to simulate *both* types of charged particles in solar wind, polar jets, coronal loops, cathode rays, etc, I would have to *assume* what Bridgman is talking about is Birkeland's inability to personally recreate the *internal power supply* of the sun in his lab!

Bridgman however never even *mentioned* that little fact, nor did he mention any of the things that Birkeland *did* successfully recreate in the lab, nor did Bridgman give Birkeland any credit for correctly predicting *fusion/fission* before it was actually discovered! Birkeland used the term 'transmutation of elements'. That is the only part of Birleland's solar model that he couldn't personally recreate in the lab, and we *still* cannot generate *sustained* fusion in the lab even today!

Never during the interview did Bridgman even *mention* Alfven's "electric sun" model? All I can say is: Wow! Talk about unprofessional.

Bridgman basically "blows off" the whole concept of an *internally* powered electric solar model simply because he *cannot handle* an internally powered 'electric sun' model. His cheesy "death by electric universe" calculations are only applicable *if* the sun is 100 percent externally powered. He therefore simply *ignores* every single 'electric sun' model ever proposed that is based primarily on *internally* powered processes.

His "shot" at Juergen's anode solar model about electrons hitting the backside of the Earth was a riot! It's called "aurora" Dr. Bridgman. We see it all the time. Contrary to your oversimplified notion of moving plasma moving in straight lines near stationary magnetic fields, the protons and electrons don't flow in nice little straight lines, they flow into the Earth along the *flow patterns" that are created by the circuits in the magnetosphere that dump current into the aurora. What a *lame* argument that was.

Obviously the biggest problem with EU/PC acceptance is the *pure ignorance* factor. Even the fact he calls Juergen's model "one of the first/early' solar models is a total joke. Both Birkeland *and* Alfven's "electric sun" models are *older* than Juergen's model and unlike the 'johnny come lately" version, the *earlier* versions of "electric suns" were *internally* powered!

The arrogance combined with the near total ignorance of Alfven's "electric sun" model, and misinformation about Birkeland's model was just sad to listen to. It's clear that the biggest hurdle for the acceptance of EU/PC theory is simply pure ignorance of the concept inside of mainstream circles. They know almost *nothing* about it, and half of what they *think* they know about the topic is complete nonsense.

But it can be 100% externally powered, and is supported by technological advances and data. We just had to wait until technology advanced.

http://electric-cosmos.org/SolarElecFlux2013.pdf

 

[Mainframes]

Ah, well, I wasn't hoping they would succeed. Sounds dangerous in my opinion to be messing with that sort of thing, they aren't exactly known to be predictable.

Micro black holes but anything that was created would have been so small that it would have evaporated from Hawkings radiation.

 

[Michael]

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background

Peratt reports that the mean lengths of these current streams must be on the order of 350 MEGAPARSECS. This means that the currents driving the nearer galaxies, such as M31 & M33 should be clearly visible in the raw WMAP data, before the foreground processing is even performed!

It's really amusing watching Bridgman turn himself into the world's last "flat Earther" in terms of being an EU/PC "hater". It's funny that the new technologies are simply *destroying* his criticisms of EU/PC theory as time passes. Using newer technologies we *do* observe those spaghetti strings, and they are literally *all over the place*!

Planck spots hot gas bridging galaxy cluster pair / Planck / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA

FYI, the "temperature" of the threads is most likely *underestimated* based on current flow alone:

By combining the Planck data with archival X-ray observations from the German satellite Rosat, the temperature of the gas in the bridge is found to be similar to the temperature of the gas in the two clusters – on the order of 80 million degrees Celsius.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Michael]

Colossal Bridge of Stars Found Linking Giant Elliptical Galaxies

 

[SelfSim]

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background

It's really amusing watching Bridgman turn himself into the world's last "flat Earther" in terms of being an EU/PC "hater". It's funny that the new technologies are simply *destroying* his criticisms of EU/PC theory as time passes. Using newer technologies we *do* observe those spaghetti strings, and they are literally *all over the place*!

Planck spots hot gas bridging galaxy cluster pair / Planck / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA

FYI, the "temperature" of the threads is most likely *underestimated* based on current flow alone:

By combining the Planck data with archival X-ray observations from the German satellite Rosat, the temperature of the gas in the bridge is found to be similar to the temperature of the gas in the two clusters – on the order of 80 million degrees Celsius.

Emphasis mine.

And from the paper:
Planck intermediate results. VIII. Filaments between interacting clusters

Using Planck and ROSAT data, we have studied the tSZ and X- ray maps of 25 pairs of clusters of galaxies. After modelling (assuming a spherical symmetric model) and subtracting the contribution of each individual cluster, we detected significant tSZ residuals in at least two of these pairs: A399-A401 and A3391-A3395. In the case of the A399-A401 pair, these residuals are compatible with an intercluster filament of hot, 7 keV (in agreement with Sakelliou & Ponman (2004)), and diffuse, 3.7 × 10[sup]−4[/sup] cm[sup]−3[/sup], gas connecting the two clusters.

(My emboldenment).

Pretty wispy stuff, don't ya think? And only 7KeV ... not the 30KeV Peratt needs to form galaxies.

Also, out of 25 pairs of galaxy clusters, significant tSZ residuals were detected in only two of these pairs (as at Nov 2012) ... And you find this exciting?

Can't see any loss of 'EU/PC theory criticism destruction' coming from this one, bro ! ...

 

[Michael]

And from the paper:
Planck intermediate results. VIII. Filaments between interacting clusters
(My emboldenment).

Pretty wispy stuff, don't ya think? And only 7KeV ... not the 30KeV Peratt needs to form galaxies.

Meh. He's at least in the ballpark and additional mass has already been found in the form of *entire stars* that you folks underestimated by factors of 3-20. I doubt he needs as much current these days, particularly after those horrific errors you made in guestimating stars.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20090819.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/01/scientists-sextillion-stars/

Also, out of 25 pairs of galaxy clusters, significant tSZ residuals were detected in only two of these pairs (as at Nov 2012) ... And you find this exciting?

Yep. I doubt the peak brightness of the current thread has much to do with microwaves to start with, and I doubt you folks can see past the first galaxy cluster in front of you as it relates to the S-Z effect in microwave.

Can't see any loss of 'EU/PC theory criticism destruction' coming from this one, bro ! ...

I fail to see why you think it helps Bridgman. Even the fact you folks are forced to claim S-Z effects is ridiculous. We all know that the *real emitters* are the suns and dust in those galaxies and threads between galaxies, not some mythical surface of last scattering. You're basically *guessing* at current flows based on a whole set of assumptions that are simply false. What it does show however is that at least some of the threads *do* emit in microwave just as Peratt anticipated/predicted.

Note that you folks also have a *huge* problem as it relates to your 'light crisis', and your ability to correctly predict scattering has been shown to be *way* off.

Cosmic accounting reveals missing light crisis
Universe Now Twice as Bright - Scientific American

You folks simply *ignore* the data that blows your own theories out of the water, and you fixate myopically on any perceived "flaw" in EU/PC theory, real or *imagined*. Two completely hypocritical standards.

 

[SelfSim]

Meh. He's at least in the ballpark and additional mass has already been found in the form of *entire stars* that you folks underestimated by factors of 3-20. I doubt he needs as much current these days, particularly after those horrific errors you made in guestimating stars.
...
Yep. I doubt the peak brightness of the current thread has much to do with microwaves to start with, and I doubt you folks can see past the first galaxy cluster in front of you as it relates to the S-Z effect in microwave.
...
I fail to see why you think it helps Bridgman. Even the fact you folks are forced to claim S-Z effects is ridiculous. We all know that the *real emitters* are the suns and dust in those galaxies and threads between galaxies, not some mythical surface of last scattering. You're basically *guessing* at current flows based on a whole set of assumptions that are simply false. What it does show however is that at least some of the threads *do* emit in microwave just as Peratt anticipated/predicted.

I concur with Bridgman on this .. in response to Michael's latest outburst in this thread, he rightly points out in his responses to me on his Blog site, here:

The ACTUAL report {says} this is a region of hot gas, temperature corresponding to 7 keV (= 81 million K), and density 3.7e-4/cm[sup]3[/sup], possibly due to a past interaction between the clusters. They are consistent with simulation results of interacting clusters. No mention of any currents. It is the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect - photons are preferentially scattered to higher energies when passing through a hot plasma (Wikipedia: Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect). This was a measurement of the THERMAL Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect (tSZ) as opposed the weaker kinematic SZ effect.
Again, we see Mr. Mozina 'reinterprets' the reports with no consideration of the actual science behind it.

Further, Peratt (in his model) found that by assuming the CMB was created by the sum of the emission of many of your numerous 'current streams', the shape of the CMB spectrum could be matched over frequencies up to 100GHz. However, he needed about 10[sup]31[/sup] filaments do this!!! All of which was agreed to have been visible by COBE and WMAP .. and yet none showed up in COBE and WMAP! Also, Peratt's supposed current streams would be on the order of 350 Mpc in length (according to his model). This particular EU-supposed 'filament' is a mere 30Mpc .. Ie off by at least an order of magnitude and only one of your supposed candidates has been found, which required means not even hinted by Peratt's model???

And you accuse mainstream of 'horrific underestimates' on the basis of one report which apparently triples the numbers of stars (a factor of a mere 3x) ????

You can't be serious, right?

You folks simply *ignore* the data that blows your own theories out of the water, and you fixate myopically on any perceived "flaw" in EU/PC theory, real or *imagined*. Two completely hypocritical standards.

Yeah right ... sure. See the above post for just how ridiculous your model really is, and then try showing me how playing a super aggressive pseudo-victim makes any difference to the direction real science is taking, and why.

Further, Bridgman says:

These 'filaments' END between the two galaxy clusters. Does that mean they are the 'batteries' for the system? If so, what is generating the voltage difference between them to drive the current?

- why don't we see the filaments extending BEYOND the two clusters to power more galaxies?

- In the study of 25 cluster pairs, they conclusively found only TWO connections. Not very encouraging stats for the Peratt model which required most or all galaxies to be powered by these currents.

- In the study, the closest clusters examined were at z=0.0353 and the closest with a connection was at z=0.0514 (~220 Mpc for H0=70km/s/Mpc). If these 'filaments' are connecting all galaxies, why don't we see anything closer?

Well, we're waiting ... what's your next denial/excuse for a woefully inadequate, yet supposedly 'predictive' EU model?

PS: Much credit to Tom Bridgman who long ago recognised Michael's behaviours and yet went ahead to fairly put the EU models to the test. There's now of course, a much longer list of others who have since recognised the 'swiss-cheese', (putting it mildly), that it really is ...

 

[Michael]

Further, Peratt (in his model) found that by assuming the CMB was created by the sum of the emission of many of your numerous 'current streams', the shape of the CMB spectrum could be matched over frequencies up to 100GHz. However, he needed about 10[sup]31[/sup] filaments do this!!! All of which was agreed to have been visible by COBE and WMAP .. and yet none showed up in COBE and WMAP!

Sure we observe them in *every* image. In fact *all* that shows up in *any* microwave image are the suns and the dust and the *threads* that emit them. You guys keep *ignoring* the fact that every single sun and dust particle in the universe is an actual emitter of microwaves. You instead *assume* that every photon in the 'scrubbed' microwave images comes from some mythical magical surface of last scattering. The only reason to you don't 'see' them is because you cannot see the forest from all of the trees!

Also, Peratt's supposed current streams would be on the order of 350 Mpc in length (according to his model). This particular EU-supposed 'filament' is a mere 30Mpc .. Ie off by at least an order of magnitude and only one of your supposed candidates has been found, which required means not even hinted by Peratt's model???

It's one *already*. The length of the filament is determined by the distance between the galaxy clusters.

And you accuse mainstream of 'horrific underestimates' on the basis of one report which apparently triples the numbers of stars (a factor of a mere 3x) ????

You can't be serious, right?

Yeah right ... sure. See the above post for just how ridiculous your model really is, and then try showing me how playing a super aggressive pseudo-victim makes any difference to the direction real science is taking, and why.

You *must* be joking. You quite literally broke the irony meter on that one. Mainstream models have *never* been even *close* to accurate, not ever. Your heroes botched the stellar mass estimates by factors of between 4 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the galaxy in question:

NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount
Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky | Fox News

You have a "light crisis" going where you missed the numbers by a factor of 4!

Cosmic accounting reveals missing light crisis

Even worse however is the mainstream's pathetic track record with respect to solar physics and the 'power supply' for everything that takes place in the solar atmosphere. Your folks botched that number by *two whole orders of magnitude*! You missed it by 100 times, and you're whining about a factor of 3?

Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected | Watts Up With That?

You totally and completely blew up the irony meter on that one.

Further, Bridgman says:Well, we're waiting ... what's your next denial/excuse for a woefully inadequate, yet supposedly 'predictive' EU model?

Pfft. You must realize how hypocritical that sounds to a skeptic considering the fact that you were forced to add 70 percent supernatural ad hoc gap filler to your theory just 15 year ago because your BB theories didn't jive with observation.

PS: Much credit to Tom Bridgman who long ago recognised Michael's behaviours and yet went ahead to fairly put the EU models to the test. There's now of course, a much longer list of others who have since recognised the 'swiss-cheese', (putting it mildly), that it really is ...

If Bridgman's portrayal of Birkeland's solar model, and his *lack of mention* of Alfven's solar model are any indication, it's clear that Brigman knows almost *nothing* about EU/PC theory other than what he's read about *Juergen's* solar model.

Why not invite your brave and enlightened friend here and lets see how he does in an open and honest debate?