Slashdot Mirror

Skipping the vague arguments,

Re: "With regard to dark matter, it always amuses me when people find it hard to believe it exists, when every second over 1e10 of solar neutrinos pass through every square inch of their body without interaction."

This is not at all a comprehensive statement of the problem. The trouble that gravitational cosmology is running into is not just a matter of detection - but also fundamentally a problem of distance: We can state the problem in common sense terms using the Burnham model:

If the Earth was just an inch from the Sun, then the next nearest star would be 4 miles away!

This is why the non-detection of dark matter so greatly matters. Common sense suggests that the force of gravity cannot span these vast distances without observable matter. The reporting on the dark matter problem consistently fails to present the Burnham model - which is designed to help you to comprehend the incredible distances claimed to exist between stars. Big Bang theorists reap benefits from their own refusal to create this public understanding. It's inherently misleading.

The choice to build a cosmology upon the universe's weakest force should not be made lightly.

Skipping the vague arguments,

Re: "With regard to dark matter, it always amuses me when people find it hard to believe it exists, when every second over 1e10 of solar neutrinos pass through every square inch of their body without interaction."

This is not at all a comprehensive statement of the problem. The trouble that gravitational cosmology is running into is not just a matter of detection - but also fundamentally a problem of distance: We can state the problem in common sense terms using the Burnham model:

If the Earth was just an inch from the Sun, then the next nearest star would be 4 miles away!

This is why the non-detection of dark matter so greatly matters. Common sense suggests that the force of gravity cannot span these vast distances without observable matter. The reporting on the dark matter problem consistently fails to present the Burnham model - which is designed to help you to comprehend the incredible distances claimed to exist between stars. Big Bang theorists reap benefits from their own refusal to create this public understanding. It's inherently misleading.

The choice to build a cosmology upon the universe's weakest force should not be made lightly.

Re: "So for example, when I hear the lay-person's explanation of carbon dating (that the relative abundance of radioactive isotopes in a sample indicates how long ago that carbon was incorporated from the atmosphere when the sample was a living organism), I always ask myself 'doesn't that assume that the relative abundance of those isotopes in the atmosphere is constant - or at least, that scientists have some way of knowing how that ratio has changed over time?'"

Well done, Rob Y. Your suspicions are dead-on. You've stumbled onto another scientific controversy.

I cover the numerous assumptions which must be valid for radiocarbon to be accurate here

I cover the historical cherry-picking of radiocarbon dates in order to support the preferred chronology here. Many of these quotes surprisingly come from lab operators.

I cover an unusual, convenient shift in the dataset that Willard Libby uses to get the Nobel here.

Science journalists don't really cover these subjects, and their omission is noticeable. These appear to be culturally taboo topics, since the only people who tend to question the dating techniques belong to ostracized groups - like the creationists.

Re: "So for example, when I hear the lay-person's explanation of carbon dating (that the relative abundance of radioactive isotopes in a sample indicates how long ago that carbon was incorporated from the atmosphere when the sample was a living organism), I always ask myself 'doesn't that assume that the relative abundance of those isotopes in the atmosphere is constant - or at least, that scientists have some way of knowing how that ratio has changed over time?'"

Well done, Rob Y. Your suspicions are dead-on. You've stumbled onto another scientific controversy.

I cover the numerous assumptions which must be valid for radiocarbon to be accurate here

I cover the historical cherry-picking of radiocarbon dates in order to support the preferred chronology here. Many of these quotes surprisingly come from lab operators.

I cover an unusual, convenient shift in the dataset that Willard Libby uses to get the Nobel here.

Science journalists don't really cover these subjects, and their omission is noticeable. These appear to be culturally taboo topics, since the only people who tend to question the dating techniques belong to ostracized groups - like the creationists.

Re: "So for example, when I hear the lay-person's explanation of carbon dating (that the relative abundance of radioactive isotopes in a sample indicates how long ago that carbon was incorporated from the atmosphere when the sample was a living organism), I always ask myself 'doesn't that assume that the relative abundance of those isotopes in the atmosphere is constant - or at least, that scientists have some way of knowing how that ratio has changed over time?'"

Well done, Rob Y. Your suspicions are dead-on. You've stumbled onto another scientific controversy.

I cover the numerous assumptions which must be valid for radiocarbon to be accurate here

I cover the historical cherry-picking of radiocarbon dates in order to support the preferred chronology here. Many of these quotes surprisingly come from lab operators.

I cover an unusual, convenient shift in the dataset that Willard Libby uses to get the Nobel here.

Science journalists don't really cover these subjects, and their omission is noticeable. These appear to be culturally taboo topics, since the only people who tend to question the dating techniques belong to ostracized groups - like the creationists.

See recent Slashdot submission titled Petroglyph Explanation Remains Ignored After 15 Years. This situation with Trump lacking a science advisor is not especially different in that the person making these petroglyph claims, Anthony Peratt, is a government scientist specializing in high-energy density plasmas and nuclear physics, and has even advised the US government on the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Submission ...

A government researcher in plasma and nuclear physics demonstrated in a 2003 paper that 40% of all petroglyph types could be correlated to unique forms witnessed for the first time just two years prior in classified government laboratories. A recent Joe Rogan Experience episode viewed by a million people and featuring Robert Schoch, a Ph.D. in Geology and Geophysics from Yale, briefly mentions the discovery. But petroglyph experts and the larger scientific community continue to completely ignore the findings and implications. What does it mean that the public must learn about this groundbreaking discovery from a comedian? Why have science journalists ignored the discovery for almost 15 years?

The Slashdot community does not itself seem especially concerned about warnings from nuclear scientists, as the submission has had plenty of time by now to make it to the homepage.

What I notice about the Quora claim is that the person did not include their algebra. He is making a claim about algebra, but fails to go through the math.

By contrast, others have indeed gone through the math, like here in the 2nd and 3rd bubbles and the answer of ~21,000 lbs would seem to be very far shy of the largest dinosaur weights. It seems very unlikely that fiddling with bone and muscle densities (etc) is going to make up the difference to the 176,000 pounds that the sauropod is claimed to have weighed.

The weight of the largest land-walking dinosaurs is a paradox.

The largest flying creatures from these times are also a paradox. 8 meters was thought to be the theoretical wingspan limit for any airborne creature -- at least until Quetzalcoatlus specimens were found.

Mass estimates for giant azhdarchids are extremely problematic because no existing species share a similar size or body plan, and in consequence, published results vary widely.

What we see in these scientific disciplines are theorists fiddling with the numbers and behaviors in order to satisfy the paradox that they cannot exist in our current gravity. For instance, it has been claimed that the Pteranodon did not actually fly -- but rather could only glide. Yet, in some cases, the remains of these creatures are found with fish fossils and the bird had a throat pouch like a pelican. So, the creature goes down to scoop up some fish, and then what? How does it get back up to its nest? It doesn't seem that people think much about these problems these days.

Regardless, the largest flying creatures were a paradox.

Then, there are the problematic necks of the largest-necked creatures. Giraffes require an extraordinary blood pressure to get blood to their necks 20 feet up. But, the sauropod had a neck of about 50-60 feet in length! This raises issues related to not just blood pressure, but also torque.

Do the math on this blood pressure and torque, and the largest-necked creatures were a paradox.

Theorists will typically try to address just one of these problems at a time (by suggesting that the sauropod did not elevate its neck, reducing bone density or proposing that the air must have been thicker, for example), but it would seem that the only way to resolve all three problems at once is to alter gravity, no?

Galileo's Square-Cube Law appears to work for all land-walking animals alive today, but the scientific community seems to ignore its problematic application to the dinosaurs. Is it because there would seem to be a number of dinosaurs which could not seemingly exist in today's gravity?

"How could dinosaurs get so big despite Galileo's square cube law?

The law - Square-cube law
From wikipedia

'The giant monsters seen in horror movies (e.g., Godzilla or King Kong) are also unrealistic, as their sheer size would force them to collapse.'

Wouldn't the law also affect dinosaurs like the Giraffatitan?

1 Answer
Apala Chaturvedi

Galileo's Dialogue Concerning Two New Sciences contained what he considered to be one of his most profound insights: the square-cube law. If two cubes are made of the same material then they will have the same density. Yet since the two cubes have different area to volume ratios they will likewise have different stress at the base of each cube. If too much stress is placed on an object then it will fail, or in this case a large cube has a much greater possibility of collapsing. This is why sandcastles can only be a few feet high.

Galileo applied this to animals, what we now call allometry, and noted that a this implies the diameter of bones should be proportional to their length. It explains why ants can walk around on spindly little legs while lifting 50 times their body weight, compared to elephants with their tree-trunk sized feet who would strain to lift a quarter of their mass.

Also because of the Square-Cube Law, larger animals have less relative muscle strength than smaller animals. Both the muscle strength and bone strength are functions of the cross sectional area, while the weight of the animal is a function of volume.

It is because of relative muscle strength that an ant can lift fifty times its weight while a human can lift an amount equal to its own weight, and an Asian elephant can only lift 25% of its own weight. The greater muscle to weight ratio of smaller animals is what allows them to jump higher than several times their own height, while at the other extreme an elephant can not even jump.

While Galileo was successful in convincing the Church and the conservative science community that the world is not flat, the conservative science community has yet to embrace Galileo's Square-Cube Law even though it is clearly correct and fundamental to understanding every major science discipline.

Something additional to note is the common occurrence of serious bone diseases such as osteoporosis and arthritis observed in mammoth remains, for this could be called a vindication for the idea that mammoths existed at the very edge of the Square-Cube Law, or that a change in gravity is part of what destroyed them. There's additional discussion of the situation here

Re: "But for the paradigm-shifting hypotheses to deserve serious attention they need to be robust enough to explain and predict what the current leading theory does, and preferably some of its shortcomings, in a falsifiable manner. So I find the Electrical Universe model trying to explain way too much with sporadic and tangentially related data."

All ideas obviously begin in an archaic state. I try to focus on scientific controversies more broadly, so I don't really want to leave the impression that the Electric Universe is the only one I follow. But, I feel confident based upon what I have seen that the trends are favoring electrical cosmology. By the ends of our lifetimes, enough ground will be covered that we will begin to approach parity in the support -- and at that point, the people who have gone online to argue against it will probably regret these behaviors. As I've stated in the many posts on this subject, these trends are not reported by science journalists, and so are invisible to anybody who does not first learn and then actively track the claims in the light of new observations. After having tracked the EU for a full 12 years, I feel that tracking is the missing secret sauce to judging competing scientific theories because it introduces an element of surprise which theorists cannot spin. When some observation is made which surprises the mainstream, the consistent pattern is that they will admit their surprise for the first few days. Then, as they confer, the pattern is that they become emboldened to adopt the mindset that the anomaly has always been known and predicted. It's a very consistent pattern. However, what they are not doing is tracking, and this is the fatal flaw in a culture which no longer values generalists. Specialization has become so intense that they can no longer understand completely valid arguments which originate from adjacent domains.

Re: "I'm aware of the galactic filaments in the universe, but I don't see how all this leads to an internally consistent alternative to the leading theories of dark matter and general relativity"

You should learn about the subject-object transition. I think you have adopted an ideal for how to think about science which you might benefit from questioning. People have studied how leaders (like CEO's) think, and a key quality is an ability to rapidly switch between competing -- even conflicting -- frameworks. Here is an excellent quote which greatly impacted my own thinking, and which I think sums up the situation quite well:

Village Venus Syndrome
Dr. Edward de Bono

"'Dr. Edward de Bono's book on practical thinking ... makes interesting reading for ... those concerned with the problems of interpretation in the historical sciences, with the aid of an ingenious experiment, he analyzes the way the human mind works and identified 'five ways to be wrong,' 'four ways to be right,' and 'five ways to understand.' Among the ways to be right -- which means ways in which one can convince oneself one is right -- is what he calls the 'village Venus,' or 'unique rightness' method, a mental process which he believes to be particularly common among scientists and academics. If one has lived one's whole life in a remote village, cut off from contact with other people, the village Venus must be the most beautiful girl in the world because one cannot imagine anyone more beautiful. In the same way a scientist or scholar who cannot imagine, or who has not heard of any explanation which will fit a given body of evidence, as well as the one he has thought of (or, one might add, has been taught), is capable of being fully convinced of its unique rightness. Consciously he tells himself, and believes, that it is right because it fits all the facts; but actually its rightness derives solely from the lack of rival explanations.'"

Here's the graphic I think you s

Re: "What we have is theories that have made lots of verified predictions, and which have survived lots of falsification attempts."

You are pointing to the accuracy and precision of the mathematics of Relativity, while glossing over the fact that Einstein lifted all of this math from the aether theorists. The debate over Relativity has always been over the physical inference, not the accuracy and precision of the mathematics. There are countless examples, but here is just one:

William Day, A New Physics, 2000, p.118

"Relativity is a strange and novel theory that has provided equations with extreme accuracy with a theory that logically cannot be true. The theory is at most a way to rationalize a mathematical description by an imagined condition that gives a workable formula, much the way Newton devised an equation by calling gravity a force acting at a distance."

What we know is that Einstein had the luxury of fitting his physical inference to the mathematics. People who subsequently point to the accuracy and precision of the math to establish the physical inference's validity are pitching circular logic.

Re: "3) In other words, there are no falsifiable predictions, so the Electric Universe is not currently a scientific theory."

Each framework begins in a different theoretical place. The fact that plasma cosmology begins with plasmas, and works its way towards a better explanation for gravity, is not an argument against it; it's merely an observation that the two frameworks exhibit differing coverage. There is nothing extraordinary about this. You want a neat and tidy situation where you can compare apples to apples, but reality is not neat-and-tidy as you wish. That's hardly an argument for which idea will win out.

Re: "If there are such currents, and they're strong enough to have effects, why haven't we noticed some effects? That needs to be answered."

The currents are observed to be creating both stars and galaxies. You just don't see it because you've failed to learn the by-now extensive history of the Birkeland current concept.

Re: "Also, your attack on the Big Bang theories is irrelevant as well as ignorant (if you actually understood them, you'd have some idea why they're considered science, and you'd attack that idea)."

I very much understand the "evidence" of the CMB, and here are some details which your science journalism has failed to inform you about:

Anthony L. Peratt, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Second Edition, 2015, p.33-34.

"High-power microwave generation on earth belongs exclusively to devices using relativistic electron beams ... A relativistic electron beam that does not produce microwave radiation is unknown. These same basic mechanisms are likely to have their natural analogs in cosmic plasmas."

The idea that the microwaves coming at us from all directions must necessarily indicate an expansion is total nonsense. It is one of the greatest collective delusions in the history of modern science.

The idea of expansion was proposed by a Catholic priest:

Anthony L. Peratt, ‘Dean of the Plasma Dissidents’, The World & I, May 1988, p.190-197

"To Alfvén, the Big Bang was a fable -- a fable devised to explain creation. 'I was there when Abbé Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory,' he recalled. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas’ theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing."

You might take that into consideration when you contemplate why the Big Bang is so popul

Re: " If the Electric Universe model wants to be taken as real science then it needs to have the explanatory and predictive power necessary to account for all of these evidences at least as well as dark matter."

The answer to the riddle of dark matter is as follows:

(1) At the interstellar scale, gravity is a localized force. This should be common sense, for if the Earth was just an inch from the Sun, the next nearest star would generally be around 4 miles away (this analogy goes by the name of the "Burnham Model"). Simple algebra argues against stars gravitationally interacting with one another at the interstellar scale.

(2) And if you were to actually ask a theorist for proof that Relativity applies at the largest scales, the more honest ones would admit that they lack such proof:

Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility, by Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones (2013), p10:

"Combing through the library, I found a well-known textbook on galactic dynamics where the authors state:

'It is worth remembering that all of the discussion so far has been based on the premise that Newtonian gravity and general relativity are correct on large scales. In fact, there is little or no direct evidence that conventional theories of gravity are correct on scales much larger than a light year or so. Newtonian gravity works extremely well on scales of 10^12 meters, the solar system (...) It is principally the elegance of general relativity and its success in solar system tests that lead us to the bold extrapolation to scales 10^19 - 10^24 meters ... [3]'

Wow! Fancy that. Two leading experts claim that the law of gravity has been well tested in our solar system only -- a tiny fraction of the universe that corresponds to a single snowflake in all of Greenland. Scientists seem drawn to the 'elegance' of the theory, which is not really a scientific criterion. I often confront physicists and astronomers with this quote. Usually they shrug and reply airily, 'That is indeed true, but why shouldn't the law of gravity be valid? So far, there is nothing better to replace it.'"

- J. Binney and S. Tremaine, S. Galactic Dynamics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), 635.

(3) Wal Thornhill has provided a conceptually simple explanation for gravity which may or may not be correct (I suspect he is close). What is important about his conjecture is that it shows us an example for why gravity might be a localized force. His explanation goes like this:

- Every particle within each atom is made of orbiting ~0 mass charges.

- Every subatomic particle is distorted by the presence of others to form a tiny electric dipole.

Like magnets that are free to rotate, all the electric dipoles in protons, neutrons and electrons line up to produce gravity.

Neutral atoms distorted by gravity induce an electric field inside of a body.

The idea is useful, even if incorrect, because it gives us a simple framework to think and pivot from. For example, it's easy enough to see that gravity should be a localized force with such a mechanism. And we've seen this sort of thing elsewhere -- namely, the Van der Waals.

(4) So, what is happening at the largest scales? We know enough at this point to have a good clue about it. Consider, for example, this clue whose importance has been completely missed by the mainstream:

Many disc galaxies, including our own Milky Way, have a central bulge that resembles either a box or an unshelled peanut. This bulge may form when the circular orbits of

Re: " If the Electric Universe model wants to be taken as real science then it needs to have the explanatory and predictive power necessary to account for all of these evidences at least as well as dark matter."

The answer to the riddle of dark matter is as follows:

(1) At the interstellar scale, gravity is a localized force. This should be common sense, for if the Earth was just an inch from the Sun, the next nearest star would generally be around 4 miles away (this analogy goes by the name of the "Burnham Model"). Simple algebra argues against stars gravitationally interacting with one another at the interstellar scale.

(2) And if you were to actually ask a theorist for proof that Relativity applies at the largest scales, the more honest ones would admit that they lack such proof:

Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility, by Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones (2013), p10:

"Combing through the library, I found a well-known textbook on galactic dynamics where the authors state:

'It is worth remembering that all of the discussion so far has been based on the premise that Newtonian gravity and general relativity are correct on large scales. In fact, there is little or no direct evidence that conventional theories of gravity are correct on scales much larger than a light year or so. Newtonian gravity works extremely well on scales of 10^12 meters, the solar system (...) It is principally the elegance of general relativity and its success in solar system tests that lead us to the bold extrapolation to scales 10^19 - 10^24 meters ... [3]'

Wow! Fancy that. Two leading experts claim that the law of gravity has been well tested in our solar system only -- a tiny fraction of the universe that corresponds to a single snowflake in all of Greenland. Scientists seem drawn to the 'elegance' of the theory, which is not really a scientific criterion. I often confront physicists and astronomers with this quote. Usually they shrug and reply airily, 'That is indeed true, but why shouldn't the law of gravity be valid? So far, there is nothing better to replace it.'"

- J. Binney and S. Tremaine, S. Galactic Dynamics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), 635.

(3) Wal Thornhill has provided a conceptually simple explanation for gravity which may or may not be correct (I suspect he is close). What is important about his conjecture is that it shows us an example for why gravity might be a localized force. His explanation goes like this:

- Every particle within each atom is made of orbiting ~0 mass charges.

- Every subatomic particle is distorted by the presence of others to form a tiny electric dipole.

Like magnets that are free to rotate, all the electric dipoles in protons, neutrons and electrons line up to produce gravity.

Neutral atoms distorted by gravity induce an electric field inside of a body.

The idea is useful, even if incorrect, because it gives us a simple framework to think and pivot from. For example, it's easy enough to see that gravity should be a localized force with such a mechanism. And we've seen this sort of thing elsewhere -- namely, the Van der Waals.

(4) So, what is happening at the largest scales? We know enough at this point to have a good clue about it. Consider, for example, this clue whose importance has been completely missed by the mainstream:

Many disc galaxies, including our own Milky Way, have a central bulge that resembles either a box or an unshelled peanut. This bulge may form when the circular orbits of

Re: "There is a lot of talk about scientists and very little talk about physical theory. As far as I can tell, EU is some conspiracy theory about scientists as opposed to a science theory. Maybe it would be more attractive and approachable if they drop the antisocial, whiny cruft and stuck to business."

It's probably unfair to judge an entire cosmology through Internet comments. Since a lot of the efforts here are focused upon correcting misconceptions, these efforts may come off to some as "whiny". For a more thoughtful introduction, you might consider, instead, reading The Electric Sky by Don Scott, which goes into great length about how we can explain astronomical observations with ordinary laboratory plasma physics observations.

If you'd prefer to avoid purchasing their book, then consider their technical introduction, The Essential Guide -- which is actually geared towards those with an EE background. It is quite technical.

Alternatively, if you come from the world of plasma physics, you'd want to also supplement these works with the second edition of Physics of the Plasma Universe And in that case, there are also a couple of papers you should read here and here, which both review critiques of MHD in good detail.

Personally, I also recommend focusing upon the historical arguments, whose importance are greatly under-appreciated ... e.g., the mistaken assumption of empty space, the story of Kristian Birkeland, the history of the Birkeland current concept, the electron theory as a worldview, the story of Halton Arp, the Big Bang's big redshift assumption, and this discussion of the debate over uniformitarianism vs catastrophism, for starters.

For those that just want a very basic and quick introduction, then watch these two Youtube videos.

There is really no shortage of high-quality resources, pitched at all of the various levels. If you aren't seeing them, then that definitely says more about your own efforts to find these resources than anything else.

Re: "There is a lot of talk about scientists and very little talk about physical theory. As far as I can tell, EU is some conspiracy theory about scientists as opposed to a science theory. Maybe it would be more attractive and approachable if they drop the antisocial, whiny cruft and stuck to business."

It's probably unfair to judge an entire cosmology through Internet comments. Since a lot of the efforts here are focused upon correcting misconceptions, these efforts may come off to some as "whiny". For a more thoughtful introduction, you might consider, instead, reading The Electric Sky by Don Scott, which goes into great length about how we can explain astronomical observations with ordinary laboratory plasma physics observations.

If you'd prefer to avoid purchasing their book, then consider their technical introduction, The Essential Guide -- which is actually geared towards those with an EE background. It is quite technical.

Alternatively, if you come from the world of plasma physics, you'd want to also supplement these works with the second edition of Physics of the Plasma Universe And in that case, there are also a couple of papers you should read here and here, which both review critiques of MHD in good detail.

Personally, I also recommend focusing upon the historical arguments, whose importance are greatly under-appreciated ... e.g., the mistaken assumption of empty space, the story of Kristian Birkeland, the history of the Birkeland current concept, the electron theory as a worldview, the story of Halton Arp, the Big Bang's big redshift assumption, and this discussion of the debate over uniformitarianism vs catastrophism, for starters.

For those that just want a very basic and quick introduction, then watch these two Youtube videos.

There is really no shortage of high-quality resources, pitched at all of the various levels. If you aren't seeing them, then that definitely says more about your own efforts to find these resources than anything else.

Re: "There is a lot of talk about scientists and very little talk about physical theory. As far as I can tell, EU is some conspiracy theory about scientists as opposed to a science theory. Maybe it would be more attractive and approachable if they drop the antisocial, whiny cruft and stuck to business."

It's probably unfair to judge an entire cosmology through Internet comments. Since a lot of the efforts here are focused upon correcting misconceptions, these efforts may come off to some as "whiny". For a more thoughtful introduction, you might consider, instead, reading The Electric Sky by Don Scott, which goes into great length about how we can explain astronomical observations with ordinary laboratory plasma physics observations.

If you'd prefer to avoid purchasing their book, then consider their technical introduction, The Essential Guide -- which is actually geared towards those with an EE background. It is quite technical.

Alternatively, if you come from the world of plasma physics, you'd want to also supplement these works with the second edition of Physics of the Plasma Universe And in that case, there are also a couple of papers you should read here and here, which both review critiques of MHD in good detail.

Personally, I also recommend focusing upon the historical arguments, whose importance are greatly under-appreciated ... e.g., the mistaken assumption of empty space, the story of Kristian Birkeland, the history of the Birkeland current concept, the electron theory as a worldview, the story of Halton Arp, the Big Bang's big redshift assumption, and this discussion of the debate over uniformitarianism vs catastrophism, for starters.

For those that just want a very basic and quick introduction, then watch these two Youtube videos.

There is really no shortage of high-quality resources, pitched at all of the various levels. If you aren't seeing them, then that definitely says more about your own efforts to find these resources than anything else.

Re: "There is a lot of talk about scientists and very little talk about physical theory. As far as I can tell, EU is some conspiracy theory about scientists as opposed to a science theory. Maybe it would be more attractive and approachable if they drop the antisocial, whiny cruft and stuck to business."

It's probably unfair to judge an entire cosmology through Internet comments. Since a lot of the efforts here are focused upon correcting misconceptions, these efforts may come off to some as "whiny". For a more thoughtful introduction, you might consider, instead, reading The Electric Sky by Don Scott, which goes into great length about how we can explain astronomical observations with ordinary laboratory plasma physics observations.

If you'd prefer to avoid purchasing their book, then consider their technical introduction, The Essential Guide -- which is actually geared towards those with an EE background. It is quite technical.

Alternatively, if you come from the world of plasma physics, you'd want to also supplement these works with the second edition of Physics of the Plasma Universe And in that case, there are also a couple of papers you should read here and here, which both review critiques of MHD in good detail.

Personally, I also recommend focusing upon the historical arguments, whose importance are greatly under-appreciated ... e.g., the mistaken assumption of empty space, the story of Kristian Birkeland, the history of the Birkeland current concept, the electron theory as a worldview, the story of Halton Arp, the Big Bang's big redshift assumption, and this discussion of the debate over uniformitarianism vs catastrophism, for starters.

For those that just want a very basic and quick introduction, then watch these two Youtube videos.

There is really no shortage of high-quality resources, pitched at all of the various levels. If you aren't seeing them, then that definitely says more about your own efforts to find these resources than anything else.

Re: "There is a lot of talk about scientists and very little talk about physical theory. As far as I can tell, EU is some conspiracy theory about scientists as opposed to a science theory. Maybe it would be more attractive and approachable if they drop the antisocial, whiny cruft and stuck to business."

It's probably unfair to judge an entire cosmology through Internet comments. Since a lot of the efforts here are focused upon correcting misconceptions, these efforts may come off to some as "whiny". For a more thoughtful introduction, you might consider, instead, reading The Electric Sky by Don Scott, which goes into great length about how we can explain astronomical observations with ordinary laboratory plasma physics observations.

If you'd prefer to avoid purchasing their book, then consider their technical introduction, The Essential Guide -- which is actually geared towards those with an EE background. It is quite technical.

Alternatively, if you come from the world of plasma physics, you'd want to also supplement these works with the second edition of Physics of the Plasma Universe And in that case, there are also a couple of papers you should read here and here, which both review critiques of MHD in good detail.

Personally, I also recommend focusing upon the historical arguments, whose importance are greatly under-appreciated ... e.g., the mistaken assumption of empty space, the story of Kristian Birkeland, the history of the Birkeland current concept, the electron theory as a worldview, the story of Halton Arp, the Big Bang's big redshift assumption, and this discussion of the debate over uniformitarianism vs catastrophism, for starters.

For those that just want a very basic and quick introduction, then watch these two Youtube videos.

There is really no shortage of high-quality resources, pitched at all of the various levels. If you aren't seeing them, then that definitely says more about your own efforts to find these resources than anything else.

Re: "There is a lot of talk about scientists and very little talk about physical theory. As far as I can tell, EU is some conspiracy theory about scientists as opposed to a science theory. Maybe it would be more attractive and approachable if they drop the antisocial, whiny cruft and stuck to business."

It's probably unfair to judge an entire cosmology through Internet comments. Since a lot of the efforts here are focused upon correcting misconceptions, these efforts may come off to some as "whiny". For a more thoughtful introduction, you might consider, instead, reading The Electric Sky by Don Scott, which goes into great length about how we can explain astronomical observations with ordinary laboratory plasma physics observations.

If you'd prefer to avoid purchasing their book, then consider their technical introduction, The Essential Guide -- which is actually geared towards those with an EE background. It is quite technical.

Alternatively, if you come from the world of plasma physics, you'd want to also supplement these works with the second edition of Physics of the Plasma Universe And in that case, there are also a couple of papers you should read here and here, which both review critiques of MHD in good detail.

Personally, I also recommend focusing upon the historical arguments, whose importance are greatly under-appreciated ... e.g., the mistaken assumption of empty space, the story of Kristian Birkeland, the history of the Birkeland current concept, the electron theory as a worldview, the story of Halton Arp, the Big Bang's big redshift assumption, and this discussion of the debate over uniformitarianism vs catastrophism, for starters.

For those that just want a very basic and quick introduction, then watch these two Youtube videos.

There is really no shortage of high-quality resources, pitched at all of the various levels. If you aren't seeing them, then that definitely says more about your own efforts to find these resources than anything else.

Re: "There is a lot of talk about scientists and very little talk about physical theory. As far as I can tell, EU is some conspiracy theory about scientists as opposed to a science theory. Maybe it would be more attractive and approachable if they drop the antisocial, whiny cruft and stuck to business."

It's probably unfair to judge an entire cosmology through Internet comments. Since a lot of the efforts here are focused upon correcting misconceptions, these efforts may come off to some as "whiny". For a more thoughtful introduction, you might consider, instead, reading The Electric Sky by Don Scott, which goes into great length about how we can explain astronomical observations with ordinary laboratory plasma physics observations.

If you'd prefer to avoid purchasing their book, then consider their technical introduction, The Essential Guide -- which is actually geared towards those with an EE background. It is quite technical.

Alternatively, if you come from the world of plasma physics, you'd want to also supplement these works with the second edition of Physics of the Plasma Universe And in that case, there are also a couple of papers you should read here and here, which both review critiques of MHD in good detail.

Personally, I also recommend focusing upon the historical arguments, whose importance are greatly under-appreciated ... e.g., the mistaken assumption of empty space, the story of Kristian Birkeland, the history of the Birkeland current concept, the electron theory as a worldview, the story of Halton Arp, the Big Bang's big redshift assumption, and this discussion of the debate over uniformitarianism vs catastrophism, for starters.

For those that just want a very basic and quick introduction, then watch these two Youtube videos.

There is really no shortage of high-quality resources, pitched at all of the various levels. If you aren't seeing them, then that definitely says more about your own efforts to find these resources than anything else.

Adding to IMarv's comments, the sun's neutrino output has at times varied inversely with the sun's surface sunspot count. Were the neutrinos produced in the sun's nuclear core, this relationship would be inconceivable, since solar physicists calculate that it takes about 200,000 years for the energy of internal fusion to affect the sun's surface. The observations seem to raise the possibility that fusion is occurring near the sun's surface, and it only took one non-correlated half-cycle for theorists to completely stop paying attention.

The graph which shows this anti-correlation has been deeply buried in academic papers, so I've published a copy of it here.

Most authors that have analyzed the full set of data from 1970 to 1990 find a reasonably significant correlation between the 37 Ar production rate and sunspot occurrences, solar oscillation frequency changes and solar magnetic fields.

One thing to consider, when contemplating the situation of an anti-correlation which apparently switches between on and off states is that the Sun clearly exhibits these different states through its cycle. To observe switching behavior, and immediately use that as reason to discount the existence of an anti-correlation is honestly a rush to judgment. You know, this is why we build models.

Let's review each of the many problems and oversights in your logic.

First, realize that Einstein died 3 years before (1955) anybody definitively understood that the universe is dominated by plasma (1958). Do you know why? Because for 24 long years -- from 1920 to 1944 -- the American public ridiculed Robert Goddard, the first person to suggest that we could send a rocket to the Moon, for not understanding that a "rocket would have nothing in space to push against" (a common misconception back then). Do you know what stopped the ridicule? The Germans took Goddard's invention and attacked Europe with 3,000 V2 rockets. Those V2's had all of Goddard's key inventions within them, because as the American public was mocking Goddard, the Germans were intently listening to everything he said.

Apparently, the American public learned nothing at all from that event, because to this day, we continue to ridicule innovators in the sciences. Like Don Scott of the Thunderbolts Group, Goddard was an American professor.

Re: "The scientific community says "gravity has to work pretty closely to how we think or satellites (among otehr things) wouldn't be possible and they clearly are"

Einstein lifted the Lorentz transformation from the aether theorists of the day. He did not invent this math.

Re: "So you need to come back with proof that you theory is at least as good as gravity in all areas that gravity is useful and can therefore replace it entirely or reconcile the parts that contradict gravity before it can be considered a viable addition to scientific knowledge"

The Electric Universe does not begin in the same place as conventional astronomy and cosmology. It starts by recognizing that the cosmic plasma models widely applied by astrophysicists are wrong -- and once the models are corrected to reflect our laboratory observations, the dark matter problem goes away. From that vantage point, options open up for how to proceed to explain gravity. But, Anthony Peratt's galactic simulation with proper rotation curves explains what is happening at the largest scales without need for any dark matter -- meaning that it essentially meets your criteria above (just not in the way that you imagined).

The point is that we have "potential wins" on both sides of this debate. It is not a one-sided affair, for instruments designed to detect dark matter have grown a million times more sensitive over the past 15 years -- meaning that dark matter is starting to look like modern cosmology's dead end.

You could have reasoned your way to the same conclusion without having to build all of those instruments, actually, by simply considering the ridiculous scales we are talking about here: If the Earth was just an inch from the Sun, the next nearest star would be a stunning 4 miles away (!). Simple logic and some very simple algebra is screaming at you that gravity is a "localized" force, starting at the interstellar scale.

Re: "General relativity works very well and is empirically verified by things like GPS satellites"

There are plenty of rebuttals online to this thoughtless claim. I encourage you to look them up. They're not difficult to find.

Re: "Because it is mysticism instead they claim that all things are plasma (because complex nuanced positions are hard to sell)"

All that I can say is: Welcome to the Space Age -- a revolution which is, apparently, still playing out.

Quantum Statistics of Nonideal Plasmas

"Plasmas play a fundamental role in nature. Probably more than 99 percent of visible matter in the universe exist in the plasma state. Plasmas exist, e.g. as interstellar gas, in stellar atmosp

Let's review each of the many problems and oversights in your logic.

First, realize that Einstein died 3 years before (1955) anybody definitively understood that the universe is dominated by plasma (1958). Do you know why? Because for 24 long years -- from 1920 to 1944 -- the American public ridiculed Robert Goddard, the first person to suggest that we could send a rocket to the Moon, for not understanding that a "rocket would have nothing in space to push against" (a common misconception back then). Do you know what stopped the ridicule? The Germans took Goddard's invention and attacked Europe with 3,000 V2 rockets. Those V2's had all of Goddard's key inventions within them, because as the American public was mocking Goddard, the Germans were intently listening to everything he said.

Apparently, the American public learned nothing at all from that event, because to this day, we continue to ridicule innovators in the sciences. Like Don Scott of the Thunderbolts Group, Goddard was an American professor.

Re: "The scientific community says "gravity has to work pretty closely to how we think or satellites (among otehr things) wouldn't be possible and they clearly are"

Einstein lifted the Lorentz transformation from the aether theorists of the day. He did not invent this math.

Re: "So you need to come back with proof that you theory is at least as good as gravity in all areas that gravity is useful and can therefore replace it entirely or reconcile the parts that contradict gravity before it can be considered a viable addition to scientific knowledge"

The Electric Universe does not begin in the same place as conventional astronomy and cosmology. It starts by recognizing that the cosmic plasma models widely applied by astrophysicists are wrong -- and once the models are corrected to reflect our laboratory observations, the dark matter problem goes away. From that vantage point, options open up for how to proceed to explain gravity. But, Anthony Peratt's galactic simulation with proper rotation curves explains what is happening at the largest scales without need for any dark matter -- meaning that it essentially meets your criteria above (just not in the way that you imagined).

The point is that we have "potential wins" on both sides of this debate. It is not a one-sided affair, for instruments designed to detect dark matter have grown a million times more sensitive over the past 15 years -- meaning that dark matter is starting to look like modern cosmology's dead end.

You could have reasoned your way to the same conclusion without having to build all of those instruments, actually, by simply considering the ridiculous scales we are talking about here: If the Earth was just an inch from the Sun, the next nearest star would be a stunning 4 miles away (!). Simple logic and some very simple algebra is screaming at you that gravity is a "localized" force, starting at the interstellar scale.

Re: "General relativity works very well and is empirically verified by things like GPS satellites"

There are plenty of rebuttals online to this thoughtless claim. I encourage you to look them up. They're not difficult to find.

Re: "Because it is mysticism instead they claim that all things are plasma (because complex nuanced positions are hard to sell)"

All that I can say is: Welcome to the Space Age -- a revolution which is, apparently, still playing out.

Quantum Statistics of Nonideal Plasmas

"Plasmas play a fundamental role in nature. Probably more than 99 percent of visible matter in the universe exist in the plasma state. Plasmas exist, e.g. as interstellar gas, in stellar atmosp

On the specific issue of magnetic reconnection, I was really referring to the fact that there are two separate sides to that debate -- and the astrophysicists, if pressed, would have a difficult time explaining the opposing arguments.

In my opinion, a huge aspect to this problem is the institutional aversion to telling certain awkward stories that relate to these topics. The mistaken assumption of empty interplanetary, interstellar and intergalactic space is perhaps a prime example of a story which academics and science journalists seem to treat as sort of "rated X" insofar as they generally refuse to place any importance on it. Yet, it can be traced back to the selection of numerous theories in the early 1900's. For example,

"Alfven's proposal of a galactic magnetic field met with widespread resistance (if not scorn), as it directly contradicted the prevailing wisdom that a vacuum filled interstellar space."

Eddington explicitly refers to the assumption is his choice of models for powering the Sun:

"Since we are limited to energy liberated in the deep interior of the star, extraneous sources of supply are ruled out, and it is scarcely possible to escape the conclusion that the supply of energy for future expenditure is already hidden in the star. Energy, however, cannot be successfully hidden; it betrays itself by its manifestation as mass. Energy and mass are equivalent, and we know the masses of the stars."

Although I don't have an authoritative source on hand, it can also be shown that Sydney Chapman used the assumption to reject Kristian Birkeland's proposal that the aurora originated with the Sun.

These are remarkable historical observations insofar as we today know that this assumption was incorrect (And more than that, the mistaken assumption was hiding from Eddington an alternative potential power source.)

The thing about this is that it's rare to see anybody connecting the dots between this former mistaken assumption and the theories which "won out" as popular today -- yet, it is also remarkably easy to show that it did in fact play a part. And there can be little doubt that even Einstein's work could also be implicated as basing on it, for the first instrumented probes were not actually sent to space until 1958 -- 3 years after his death. So, can it be that Einstein was simply working with what he had available to him? The question would seem to be valid, for once plasma is introduced into the conversation, then we can without a doubt formulate alternative hypotheses for all sorts of cosmological observations.

The mainstream would be wise to start telling the story of this mistake, for it is extremely important. I try to explain why here.

Re: "Except one is extrapolation from direct measurement and the other is, in your words, a 'short leap of imagination' which I think is being very generous about how long a leap it is."

"Eighty-four distinct high-energy-density Z-pinch categories have been identified in petroglyphs, nearly all of which belong to the archaic [50] class. Only a small percentage of these petroglyphs, or petroglyph patterns, do not fall into any of these categories."

I've created a graphic here which I think reduces the confusion of this paper. It lays out the surprising correspondence between laboratory-generated plasma instabilities in high-intensity electric discharges and common abstract petroglyph forms.

"40% of petroglyph types can be accounted for."

Re: "I think if you read up a bit more about Gerald Pollack you'll see that the folks who are co-opting his work are other crackpots extrapolating from his book and work to make bizarre claims about magic water which he never made."

You made this up. I am talking about mainstream researchers. There is nothing at all bizarre about structured water. It has been extensively studied in the laboratory. It can be observed to accumulate at the top of a typical cup of water as a reaction to casting a very specific frequency of infrared light onto it. The experiment is not complicated. Since the structured and bulk water are actually two different molecular arrangements, they exhibit differing net charges. And if you actually hook up a resistor to these two different regions of your typical glass of water, you can actually measure an electric current. You might consider that you don't actually know what you are arguing against.

Re: "The problem isn't a lack of rigor in dismissing bizarre claims, it's a lack of rigor in the claims themselves."

This is a stunning display of irony -- for you've arrived at this conclusion without any actual process for learning or tracking the claims.

Re: "Lastly there is no such thing as 'settled science'."

By "settled science", I am referring to the idea that we can assume that some questions are settled, without any need to track them for vindications over time. It is clear from your own comments that settled science is very real.

Re: "The areas you cite (with the exception of Pollack) don't even bother to make predictions, they're just folks jumping up and down yammering 'acknowledge my theory, acknowledge my theory'."

Some of our most important ideas in the sciences today originated in just this manner, actually. And in fact, pet theories are actually quite common amongst even academics.

The way that cosmology -- and scientific frameworks more generally -- have traditionally operated is that there is a solid foundation of claims which are then supplemented by a variety of -- hopefully peripheral -- conjectures and speculations. To the extent that people think that they can throw away the entire framework (e.g., the core claim that electricity dominates at the larger scales) because of the less supported conjectures and speculations (e.g., Wal Thornhill's suggestion that electrons have structure), you are actually diverging from the established tradition of scientific frameworks. We need to allow theorists some room to propose conjectures, because some of them will end up as actual hypotheses or theories.

There is of course no shortage in mainstream cosmology of unsupported wacky ideas. Countless articles and papers have been written on these questionable topics, but they do not by themselves discount the core claim that gravity might dominate at all scales. The speculations can only be judged as possibly problematic if the solid parts of the theories somehow rest upon the weaker conjectures, as a necessary support.

Re: "Dumbass, at the same vast distances, so are electricity and magnetism."

Forgive my cynicism, but I see that we have now arrived at the point where people are ignoring the implications of the geometry of the plasma filament. The plasma filament presents a perfectly valid solution to the distance problem because of its inherent long-range attraction and short-range repulsion between separate filaments. What this means in practice is that the electric force is then extended to whatever distance -- basically infinite -- that the filament extends to.

For many years, a number of "debunkers" have attempted to undermine this solution to the dark matter problem by claiming either that plasma is quasi-neutral (and hence non-conductive) or that the electric force is shielded at some distance (Debye screening). The Thunderbolts Group has soundly rebutted the quasi-neutrality argument here, and I've personally documented three exceptional violations of Debye screening here.

In a sense, these earlier arguments are basically voided by this new mainstream admission of light-years long filaments of plasma currents, but since the reporting by mainstream science journalists on these topics is so confused, the memo never seems to be received by the "debunkers".

My favorite part of the cold fusion debate was when the hot fusion researchers held a "wake for cold fusion" party before they had even taken all of the data. The flyers for that party have been published online.