Now all you have got to do is persuade people who are actually qualified as astrophysicists that EU is not a load of old baloney. Apparently they are quite sure that it is.
I can actually show them *working* laboratory models that produce tangible results, *useful* predictions (real ones, not postdicted nonsense), and that have tangible application to solar physics, and Earth atmospheric physics.
I see no logical or useful reason to pursue the dark matter snipe hunt once again. I'd much rather we use the same scientists, the same facilities, the same infrastructure, and funding channels, etc on tangible empirical physics for a change, at least for a generation or two to see what we can come up with in terms of *tangible* explanations for events in spacetime.
At the moment, 95+ percent of what occurs in space is based upon a what amounts to a placeholder term for pure human ignorance, including a complete inability to name so much as a single source of "dark energy", or come up with a *useful* mathematical prediction for "dark matter".
IMO Birkeland knew more about solar physics, and spaceweather forecasting 100 years ago than most astrophysicists to this day. It's sad IMO that current physical models are based upon pure "pseudoscience" according to the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory. How sad is that?
What the mainstream *refuses* to understand about circuit theory as applied to astrophysics could fill volumes.
If the mainstream's basic knowledge is exemplified by their public blogs to date, all I can say is they are entirely ignorant of the basic concepts and principles associated with EU/PC theory. They can't even get the particle flow diagrams correct, or have a *clue* about the neutrino predictions of *various* EU/PC solar models.
I can't really educate them so long as they publicly and willfully misrepresent the basic concepts.
