Slashdot Mirror

Even in Newton's theory of gravity, photons are deflected from the Sun. Interesting, even some Physicists forget this! However there is a difference of a factor of 2 between the predictions of Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's general relativity, in the amount of the affect.

https://briankoberlein.com/201...
[...]
The catch is that the amount of bending predicted by Newton’s model is half what Einstein’s model predicted. Eddington actually demonstrated not only that light was gravitationally deflected, but that the amount matched Einstein, and not Newton.
[...]

https://www.researchgate.net/p...
[...]
Jerry Decker
Private Research
Newton Gravity can be manipulated to give an approximation of bending light, but was not done in advance of Einstein GR. So it is just an exercise with approximate results.
Local gravity acceleration does not depend on the small mass of a falling object, only the mass of the sun or other large body. Then curvature is implied.
g = MG/r2
Radial velocity changes according to curvature
dvr/dt = g
  Taken into the usual hyperbolic geometry, it leads to an answer for bending of light that is only half as large as GR and the accepted observations
[...]

Koberlein admits 4 years later that he was wrong to claim that the Electric Universe predicts no neutrinos, but take a look at the link you posted: He has left the claim there in his personal blog, without any mention of the mistake. Not only does he refuse to have his critiques reviewed, but when he is informed of obvious mistakes, he also refuses to retract those mistaken claims. This is the process which you are supporting by passing along his links. I'm always amused that people who claim to believe so strongly in the value of peer review will gladly point to unreviewed critiques so long as they personally agree with the claims being made.

Re: "The electric force travels faster than the speed of light with near-infinite velocity."

You've completely misstated this point, to the point of causing confusion. What Wal has suggested is that electrons have subparticles (he calls them "subtrons"). It is the subtrons which are interacting at near-infinite velocity and which confer quantum physics' mysterious attributes (absolutely not the electric force, which of course results from electrons -- not subtrons). Using this approach, it also becomes possible to explain gravity as a form of electron dipole distortion, much like what we already know about how the Van der Waals force works. This approach offers us a possible way to reconcile the quantum and gravity domains -- a problem which you of course fail to mention in your attempt here to discredit the EU. Their only crime here is to try to solve the problem that you fail to mention -- a problem which you will still be stuck with if you remove the EU from the conversation.

But, it's also incorrect to state that this constitutes their "central thesis". The central thesis is the conversation which we've been having here about how to model cosmic plasmas. When engaging these topics, its crucial to start there, because if you talk to people who consider themselves to be adherents, they will not place a whole lot of importance on subtrons, and you may also run into people who engage the EU topics, but who do not necessarily agree that all aspects of Relativity are wrong. Just like in mainstream physics, to the extent that people are thinking for themselves, you're going to observe a full spectrum of beliefs -- some better put together than others, of course.

Electric Universe - it's actual central thesis is:

* Einstein's postulates are wrong.
* General relativity (GR) is wrong.
* The Universe is not expanding.
* The electric force travels faster than the speed of light with near-infinite velocity.
* Gravity has two poles like a bar magnet; dipole gravity.
* A plenum of neutrinos forms an all-pervasive aether.
* Planets give birth to comets.
* Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.
* Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges. The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/...

for a longer read: https://briankoberlein.com/201...

EU is pseudo-science with a cult following. Why? It doesn't take any actual work to be a brain-dead follower (that's my guess).

What I've observed over time are a lot of poorly-argued hit pieces which people who claim to believe in peer review immediately adopted as truth. In some cases -- as in the case of Professor Koberlein of RIT -- there have been some glaring errors in his analysis.

For example, this claim he made in that article (below) is completely false, and there is -- to this day -- no retraction observable in the article posted to his own personal blog:

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun.

Had he simply googled "electric universe neutrinos", the professor would have run into the EU explanation for solar neutrinos.

Koberlein recently published a redaction -- after four years of refusing to do so -- where he clumsily admitted that this claim is not entirely accurate.

It's interesting that people who claim to believe in peer review are so quick to accept critiques which have not been reviewed by anybody. It's also interesting that Koberlein does not go back and correct the original article, so anybody reading that -- to this day -- would have to sift through all of the comments attached to it in order to understand that a mistake was made. I'm betting that most people don't do that.

What I've observed over time are a lot of poorly-argued hit pieces which people who claim to believe in peer review immediately adopted as truth. In some cases -- as in the case of Professor Koberlein of RIT -- there have been some glaring errors in his analysis.

For example, this claim he made in that article (below) is completely false, and there is -- to this day -- no retraction observable in the article posted to his own personal blog:

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun.

Had he simply googled "electric universe neutrinos", the professor would have run into the EU explanation for solar neutrinos.

Koberlein recently published a redaction -- after four years of refusing to do so -- where he clumsily admitted that this claim is not entirely accurate.

It's interesting that people who claim to believe in peer review are so quick to accept critiques which have not been reviewed by anybody. It's also interesting that Koberlein does not go back and correct the original article, so anybody reading that -- to this day -- would have to sift through all of the comments attached to it in order to understand that a mistake was made. I'm betting that most people don't do that.

Frankly, I find it hard to take it seriously until they start work on building a Hermes:
https://briankoberlein.com/201...

There is no way that an Orion will be big enough to do a trip to Mars and back in.

https://briankoberlein.com/201...

This is not a direct answer to your question, but I must add that Brian Koberlein has a fantastic blog about astronomy and astrophysics.

https://briankoberlein.com/

In particular, his series of posts on dark matter were (IMO) one of the most informative I've read

https://briankoberlein.com/201...

This is not a direct answer to your question, but I must add that Brian Koberlein has a fantastic blog about astronomy and astrophysics.

https://briankoberlein.com/

In particular, his series of posts on dark matter were (IMO) one of the most informative I've read

https://briankoberlein.com/201...