Electric Universe: has there ever been a scientific research program?

[JeanTate]

UPDATE:

There were some responses to my ISF post, over in la-la-land (a.k.a. Thunderdolts), mostly just more excuses and bleating; it's crystal clear, by now, that a key reason why no EU acolyte has proposed even the sketchiest tests of "EU theory" is that they are, collectively, innumerate. For example, the steady stream of "looks like a duck Birkeland current" comments/images/etc are never followed by even the slightest hint of "here's how to estimate the current, based on the images" (or similar).

On a slightly positive note, there was a suggestion that it's not doing zero-cost astronomical research (based on what-Arp-would-have-given-his-first-born-for, e.g. SDSS, etc) that will test "the EU", but rather reproducing Birkeland's experiments (no, don't laugh; I think the comment was made in all seriousness). Of course, today we know far more about the density, temperature, composition, etc of the IPM (inter-planetary medium), from the solar corona out to 1 au (and beyond) than Birkeland did, so EU fanatics have a far better chance of testing Birkeland's ideas than he did.

So, is there a concrete proposal or two, for what a lab-based, empirical test might be? An outline of how to appropriately scale a terrella, for example, to represent the IPM density gradient? Nope; not even the slightest hint ... (lots of gratuitous "recommendations", of course, that it should be "professionals" who do all this work; EU fans are nothing if not honest about their inability to do any work of this kind, and their lack of intent to ever learn).

Much to my delight, over in fantasy-land, there is, in fact, a proposal for testing!

Bending of light, due to gravity.

This is one of the most fundamental ideas of General relativity, and all of its evidence that I have seen
has certain flaws. The major problem is that all this evidence is in astronomical objects, and not in
the laboratory. In the laboratory we have only seen shifts in frequency, which might have other causes.

But the bending of light can be tested in the laboratory. We can do it by
placing mirrors opposite of each other and a laser. These mirrors can reflect the
laser beam forth and back for a very long distance. If these mirrors are straight enough,
we will see the acceleration of gravity affecting the beam of light.
Let us assume 2 mirrors 4,000 m apart, and light bouncing about 100,000 times.
If we use c= 300E6 m/s, light will take a 4E8/3E8 = 4/3= 1.3 seconds. (i'll use 1 second instead).
With G=10 m/s², light should fall a distance of 5 meter.

It will even change, depending on the gravity of the sun and the moon.

Difficult?
Maybe, but we have actually done this experiment, with very high accuracy.

It is the LIGO itself.

Nowhere I have seen this falling of light mentioned everywhere...

Maybe, because light does not fall.

OK, so it's not a proposal to test the EU But it does seem to show that at least one EU acolyte can think of doing tests.

On the downside, however, there's a series of comments about some publications of Thornhill and Scott re neutrino production within electric Sun ideas (can't dignify these with word model).

The electric Sun model expects far more complex heavy element synthesis to take place in the natural particle accelerators in the photospheric lightning discharges. In that case the various neutrino “flavours” are all generated on the Sun and do not need to “oscillate” on their way to the Earth to make up an imagined deficit.

[...]

In the Electric Universe model, there is no antimatter forming antiparticles. An electron and a positron are composed of the same charged sub-particles in different conformations. They come together to form a stable neutrino, emitting most of their orbital energies in the process. They do not annihilate each other. In that sense a neutrino embodies both the electron and the positron. It can have no antiparticle.

(source)

the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is the z-ping-produced fusion occurring in the double layer (DL)

(source: his book, "The Electric Sky", p106)

Apparently, one particularly zealous EU acolyte thinks that because (some) particle accelerator experiments produce neutrinos, Thornhill's weird ideas have been proven, in controlled lab experiments!

Ditto Scott's, because fusion has been observed in (some) z-pinch experiments.

In a blog post he wrote back in 2013, Tom Bridgman introduced the term "Cafeteria Science" (my bold):

With [his] main 'proofs' totally discredited, he will be forced to rely even more on cobbling together bits-n-pieces from mainstream solar theory and mangling it into some form he can try to claim is evidence for his model. He's already started this with the revision of his site. Yet, the more of the standard model [he] tries to integrate into his, the less relevant his 'model' becomes. Why?

- Because [he] wants to accept helioseismology results where he thinks it is convenient for his model, but denies the same science where it is inconvenient.

- Because [he] appropriates many graphics generated from simulations of mainstream solar models, not informing the reader that these models are generated using a very different solar structure than advocated by [him]. Changing the composition of the solar plasma changes the particle masses and ionization levels which can dramatically alter the results of these simulations and make them inapplicable.

Scientific results, especially things as well established as solar and stellar physics, is not something where you can pick-and-choose your science as if from a menu.

[He] has never presented a rigorous demonstration that any of the results he has lifted from standard solar theory would even apply in his model.

Once again, a good illustration of the fact that, whatever the EU is, it is not science.

 

[Reality Check]

Ditto Scott's, because fusion has been observed in (some) z-pinch experiments.

This may be Scott's hyperbole (to be charitable).
As far as I can find out there have been no confirmed stellar-type fusion (e.g. using hydrogen) in z-pinch experiments.
There were neutrons detected in a z-pinch experiment (ZETA (fusion reactor)) but then it was found that they also appeared in runs that did not have the conditions needed for fusion.
Looking up 'z-pinch fusion' in SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) gives proposals for enhanced z-pinch apparatus that might give sustainable fusion. Looking up 'z-pinch fusion observations' gives 71 abstracts. There are neutrinos detected from D-D reactions.


Which leads to one of the EU fantasies - that anything we produce in the lab will appear in nature ! So according to EU logic, there must be natural Bose-Einstein condensates, natural super-fluid helium-4, natural z-pinches, etc.

 

[Reality Check]

Much OK, so it's not a proposal to test the EU

And not even a proposal to test the already tested gravitational bending of light in GR !
The angle of deflection of light by a massive body M = 4GM/rc²
This gives roughly ~10^-35 degrees if my math is correct. That is roughly ~10³⁵ meters for a magnitude of a meter deflection. That is a path length of 10¹⁹ light years! This is not 4,000,000,000 meters.

 

[JeanTate]

And not even a proposal to test the already tested gravitational bending of light in GR !
The angle of deflection of light by a massive body M = 4GM/rc²
This gives roughly ~10^-35 degrees if my math is correct. That is roughly ~10³⁵ meters for a magnitude of a meter deflection. That is a path length of 10¹⁹ light years! This is not 4,000,000,000 meters.

Indeed.

But credit where it's due: of the tens of thousands of EU zealots, Zyxzevn is in a tiny minority, someone who proposed a test, and one which involves making a calculation.

 

[JeanTate]

Indeed.

But credit where it's due: of the tens of thousands of EU zealots, Zyxzevn is in a tiny minority, someone who proposed a test, and one which involves making a calculation.

Over in fairy-tale land, Zyxzevn wrote an interesting comment, in response to the above (it seems that Zyxzevn did/has not actually read the relevant posts here, in full).

A really great start is this (my bold):

The mainstream has a lot of assumptions on certain subjects. From these assumptions,we can do calculations with some mathematical models.

The EU makes other assumptions on certain subjects. The EU can do calculations as well with certain mathematical models,

[...]

From this difference the EU might have found alternatives to models that the mainstream has no good observations for. These are:

1) galaxy rotation speeds. Model: Dark matter. Alternative: Electromagnetism.

[...]

These alternative explanations are simple, and are confirmed in the laboratory.
The EU only needs to extend the laboratory models to the appropriate sizes.

Sounds very promising, no?

However, here is the totality of "the EU" calculations "with certain mathematical models":
And here are all the references to such calculations, cited by Zyxzevn:
Huh?

Despite having shown the ability to do a BOTE (even if full of mistakes, and not related to anything in the EU), one that took him (?) no more than hour, Zyxzevn falls back on the tired excuses and whining that suffuses the EU.

Able to do calculations? Yes.

Willing to do so? Apparently.

Don't be shy, Zyxzevn, release your inner scientist!

 

[JeanTate]

Putting 2 and 2 together ...

<snip>

In a blog post he wrote back in 2013, Tom Bridgman introduced the term "Cafeteria Science" (my bold):

With [his] main 'proofs' totally discredited, he will be forced to rely even more on cobbling together bits-n-pieces from mainstream solar theory and mangling it into some form he can try to claim is evidence for his model. He's already started this with the revision of his site. Yet, the more of the standard model [he] tries to integrate into his, the less relevant his 'model' becomes. Why?

- Because [he] wants to accept helioseismology results where he thinks it is convenient for his model, but denies the same science where it is inconvenient.

- Because [he] appropriates many graphics generated from simulations of mainstream solar models, not informing the reader that these models are generated using a very different solar structure than advocated by [him]. Changing the composition of the solar plasma changes the particle masses and ionization levels which can dramatically alter the results of these simulations and make them inapplicable.

Scientific results, especially things as well established as solar and stellar physics, is not something where you can pick-and-choose your science as if from a menu.

[He] has never presented a rigorous demonstration that any of the results he has lifted from standard solar theory would even apply in his model.

Once again, a good illustration of the fact that, whatever the EU is, it is not science.

And applying this ...

Over in fairy-tale land, Zyxzevn wrote an interesting comment, in response to the above (it seems that Zyxzevn did/has not actually read the relevant posts here, in full).

A really great start is this (my bold):

The mainstream has a lot of assumptions on certain subjects. From these assumptions,we can do calculations with some mathematical models.

The EU makes other assumptions on certain subjects. The EU can do calculations as well with certain mathematical models,

[...]

From this difference the EU might have found alternatives to models that the mainstream has no good observations for. These are:

1) galaxy rotation speeds. Model: Dark matter. Alternative: Electromagnetism.

[...]

These alternative explanations are simple, and are confirmed in the laboratory.
The EU only needs to extend the laboratory models to the appropriate sizes.

Sounds very promising, no?

However, here is the totality of "the EU" calculations "with certain mathematical models":

And here are all the references to such calculations, cited by Zyxzevn:


Huh?

Despite having shown the ability to do a BOTE (even if full of mistakes, and not related to anything in the EU), one that took him (?) no more than hour, Zyxzevn falls back on the tired excuses and whining that suffuses the EU.

Able to do calculations? Yes.

Willing to do so? Apparently.

Don't be shy, Zyxzevn, release your inner scientist!

As Zyxzevn seems to have had at least some university education in physics ("I understand both sides of the problem. Walked all the way through the university", and "So as a scientists, I am very happy: we can test different models and learn more science" source: TBF), it's worth asking if he (?) approaches the EU from a Cafeteria Science perspective or not.

Let's see:

The main difference in assumption is: The EU assumes that electromagnetism has much more influence in the universe than mainstream assumes. This is based on the common logic that Plasma is electromagnetically active. Something that we clearly see at the sun.

From this difference the EU might have found alternatives to models that the mainstream has no good observations for. These are:

1) galaxy rotation speeds. Model: Dark matter. Alternative: Electromagnetism.

2) high energetic objects. Model: dark holes. Alternative: Electric systems.

3) variations of redshift. Model: dark energy. Alternative: Influence of interstellar plasma.

Then there are some mainstream models that are clearly wrong:

4) high radiation in solar corona. Model: magnetic reconnection.
Alternative: Electromagnetically active plasma.

5) Corona of Comets. Model: Icy comets with geysers. (I personally think that this is clearly wrong)
Alternative: Electrochemistry.

These alternative explanations are simple, and are confirmed in the laboratory.
The EU only needs to extend the laboratory models to the appropriate sizes.

Then the EU has alternative models for things that seem OK in the mainstream perspective.
And these models are usually attacked by many mainstream scientists.

6) redshift related to distance. Model: inflation. Alternative: interstellar plasma.

7) alignment of stars, shape of star formations. Model: dark matter/ big bang. Alternative: electromagnetism.

8) Lines of craters. Model: mysterious impacts. Alternative: Electromagnetic discharges.

9) Birth of stars. Model: gravity induced fusion. Alternative: Electric attraction and electromagnetic discharges.

Etc.

You will get my point. Electromagnetism everywhere..

And (my bold):

So, if we look at the rotation speed of galaxies, we can assume a force 1/r. Such a force would imply a current from the side to the centre. And if we look closely at a galaxy, we can indeed see spiral structures from the centre to the edge. Assuming these might be currents, we might expect that stars are forming along these spirals. And indeed they do.
So instead of dark matter that we can not find in any laboratory, we now have simple electromagnetic currents.
We could search a nearby galaxy with some stars on the background. That way we may be able to see dark-mode plasma currents. Not very hard. And because very strong magnetic fields already have been found in some galaxies, this electromagnetic model is very promising.
Magnetism and charged objects on a large scale might even be responsible for the rotation speed as well, since the force of a charged object in a magnetic field is stronger when the object moves faster. So even within the Electric model, we have plenty of alternatives to test.

Doesn't look like Cafeteria Science, does it?

I mean, a single, unifying idea, with local variations, right?

Well, actually Zyxzevn treats "electromagnetism" as a form of magic, one whose local manifestations are cherry-picked from a menu ("Electric systems", "interstellar plasma", "Electromagnetic discharges", "Electromagnetically active plasma", "Electrochemistry", etc).

And the cherry-picking becomes obvious when you take one of smorgasbord morsels and actually do a BOTE calculation based on it. The kind of BOTE which Zyxzevn seems very happy to do, re GR (see above) ... and a BOTE which no one over in la-la land seems to have even any interest in challenging, let alone trying to replicate.

Why am I so certain about this?

Because I've done what no one in TBF seems to have done (other than Zyxzevn)!

Stay tuned.

 

[JeanTate]

It's important to understand the context of any EU scientific research program, or BOTE calculation.

From a comment in Brian Koberlein's blog post, Testing the Electric Universe:

I’ve actually dealt with a lot of EU supporters, and the biggest problem is that you never know which position on the spectrum they’re going to take:

Plasma astrophysics is a legitimate science! (I completely agree.)
Mainstream cosmologists have problems their models can’t answer (True)
Plasma physics could explain dark matter/dark energy/no big bang (Interesting, but I’m not convinced)
The Sun is powered by interstellar electric fields (No)
The Valles Marineris on Mars was carved electrically! (Hoo boy…)
EU means the Universe is 6,000 years old (facepalm)

I have spent rather too many hours going over what's been posted, here in the SMMT section of ISF, on "the EU". You can find material on each of these six varieties of "the EU", often in many different threads (OK, maybe not the "facepalm" one). And a great many more besides.

For example:

• Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?
• Electric universe theories here.
• Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not
• Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)
• Evidence against concordance cosmology
• Iron sun with Aether batteries...

This, um, confusion over what is, and what isn't, "the EU" can be found in TBF itself.

For example, recently a TBF member tried to introduce critical examinations of "the EU", and a variant of it, into a "mainstream EU" thread, and was slapped down (no, I'm not going to provide a link; go find the thread for yourself); here's a sample:

[...] but Alfven didn't well support the EU model and Peratt criticized Thornhill's model. I don't know of any math that supports the Thunderbolts EU model's electric currents in space or how the currents are generated, if stars etc don't generate them, nor of how currents can produce z-pinches strong enough to form stars and planets. What's the math for such z-pinches?

The variant Lloyd introduced?

"Charles Chandler's EU model". Chandler has posted here too (see, for example, Critical review of an EM theory?). Perhaps a key reason why Chandler is, apparently, so disliked in TBF is that he actually did some calculations? Some of his work was shown, by our own ISF members, to be, umm, rather lacking in intellectual and mathematical rigor; perhaps that's a reason why he seems to have quit ISF (he was quite active in that thread)?

How long before someTBFone claims that Miles Mathis - the artist - has worked on "EU theory" and done calculations thereon? Maybe he has the only currently active EU scientific research program?

Anyway, I did find an example of where a TBFer who posted recently (in TBF) had a chance to show that he'd done some actual work on the EU, of the "Arpian redshifts" variety ... check out BeAChooser's posts in the Arp objects, QSOs, Statistics thread.

This enormous variety within "the EU" makes it trivially easy for an EU zealot to engage in dishonest debating tactics ... state that no EU acolyte has done even any BOTE calculations, and watch Peratt's and Lerner's names appear, even Birkeland's . When you have at least the following to choose among, "the EU" can be stretched to address even obesity I guess: “EU/PC concepts”, “EU/PC theory”, “the EU/PC cosmology model”, “EU/PC themes of cosmology”, “EU/PC cosmology theory”, “EU/PC solar models”, “EU/PC cosmology paradigm”, “the EU/PC paradigm”, “EU/PC theories (plural)”, and “the EU model”.

Anyway, the point of all this is that if you do do an EU theory BOTE calculation, say, you have a huge range of options. Whatever you choose, though, you'll surely be attacked by EU zealots, for not using the "correct" EU theory, say (much like Lloyd was attacked). And any such attack would, of course, be hypocritical and inconsistent.

Which goes to show that whatever EU zealots' approach to debate on the EU is, it is not science-based.

Stay tuned!

 

[JeanTate]

No don't get excited, no one has posted even the faintest hint of a scientific research program, based on (or testing) the "Electric Universe". At least, not that I've noticed, in the last few months.

However, lamare has posted "An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"", over in the Thunderdolts forum. It quickly got shunted to the "New Insights and Mad Ideas" section, despite the fact that it looks to outsider me like a genuine "Electric Universe" theory (it hits so many of the EU "sweet spots"). I guess that as lamare is not an official "electric theorist", the idea doesn't merit official endorsement.

You might have thought that something like this, so apparently near and dear to so many EU fanatics' hearts, would motivate some to consider testing it using astronomical data, to see if - for example - it could produce the Hubble redshift-distance relationship, or a ~3K CMB.

Doesn't seem to have happened (yet?)

 

[jonesdave116]

However, lamare has posted "An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"", over in the Thunderdolts forum. It quickly got shunted to the "New Insights and Mad Ideas" section,

Surely the whole of EU 'theory' should be in the mad ideas section?

There was a debate elsewhere about 'electrical cratering', where one of their more zealous acolytes proposed it as a mechanism for Phobos. Repeated requests for a mechanism resulted in two references; one to a paper by C. J. Ransom in that god awful Bentham special issue (I'm sure JT will know the one), and a 1988 paper by Peratt.
Ransom's paper consists of his description of creating micro-craters using plasma. He gives no indication of what mechanism would cause this, other than mentioning a Z-pinch in the title. How it forms, why it forms, is left for the reader to figure out! And no figures regarding the current etc.
Peratt's paper turned out to be a completely different thing altogether, regarding Alfven's 'plasma gun' hypothesis, possibly operating at Io. However, the first couple of lines of the abstract make it perfectly clear that for his hypothesis to work (no evidence since 1988), the volcanoes have to be pre-existing, as he admits the current involved is nowhere near enough to explain the volcanoes.
Gold, in 1979, had suggested this as a possibility, but it was quickly killed by a 1981 paper. Gold has never revisited the topic as far as I can see. Nor has anyone else.
So, what we are left with is Thornhill and Talbott's Velikovskian 'Thunderbolts of the Gods' reasoning. Which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with science.

Peratt's 1988 paper: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988Ap&SS.144..451P

Gold's 1979 paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/206/4422/1071 (paywalled)

Cook's 1981 refutation of Gold: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/211/4489/1419 (paywalled)
Interestingly, it looks like Eugene Shoemaker was a co-author on the Cook paper.

Ransom's 'paper': http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOAAJ/TOAAJ-4-185.pdf

We all know how well the 'Electric Comet' has(n't) gone for them. It will be interesting to see how T & T manage to spin this to the terminally gullible. I have no doubt that whatever they come up with will be swallowed by the most evangelical of their acolytes. Perhaps some of the more serious PC proponents really need to get away from the Velikovskian, mythology inspired woo of T & T over at woo central, and start looking at doing some proper research. Mind you, if Alfven and Peratt failed, I can't see anyone there having much luck.

 

[tusenfem]

Just as an aside, for those who are interested in the "real EU", there is an AGU monograph in the works called "Currents in Geospace and Beyond", in which you can read all about what currents can and cannot do in space physics.

I submitted a paper on comets, and I just got a paper to review about the Earth's magnetotail, so a broad range of topics is covered. The book will probably be published near the mid of 2017.

 

[Reality Check]

Doesn't look like Cafeteria Science, does it?

It looks more like argument from ignorance which maybe we should expect from the EU crowd.

• When we look at the rotation speed of galaxies, we can assume the force of gravity which is an inverse square force.
• Not all galaxies are spiral galaxies.
  However elliptical galaxies are not flat like spiral galaxies and so we cannot measure a rotation curve using the Doppler effect. The evidence looks like elliptical galaxies are about twice the mass as suggested by the light they emit (Dark matter in elliptical galaxies, Do Elliptical Galaxies Have Dark Matter Halos?) but that also matches the normal matter that we are not detected.
• The spirals in spiral galaxies cannot be material because of the winding problem (they would wind into the core within a few galactic revolutions).
• Spiral arms do have more star formation but that has nothing to do with EU current fantasies.
  Density wave theory + the SSPSF model have arms with more density (thus more star formation) and/or self-propagating waves of star formation.

 

[ferd burfle]

IThe spirals in spiral galaxies cannot be material because of the winding problem (they would wind into the core within a few galactic revolutions).

What a great thing to learn, thanks RC!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JeanTate]

No don't get excited, no one has posted even the faintest hint of a scientific research program, based on (or testing) the "Electric Universe". At least, not that I've noticed, in the last few months.
<snip>

An EU zealot protested, over in Thunderdolts, to the effect that "a full and complete set of Birkeland type experiments" has been proposed for years.

I did a quick check, and apart from SAFIRE, found nothing of the sort. Sure you'll get lots of hits on phrases like "Birkeland experiment", but even a semi-rational, logical summary of what just such a set of them would entail (much less a complete set)? Um, no. Also no hint of any literature searches being done, to see what sort of experiments of this kind have been done, and results published, in the last century or so (see tusenfem's post upthread for some relevant background). Not even the kind of cherry picked ones EU acolytes are much in love with.

The EU, where science is verboten ...

 

[tusenfem]

i think there were, of late, some new experiments wirh terrellas
i sm now on a short vacation, can see later if i can find the references

 

[JeanTate]

I haven't posted to this thread for several months.

For the obvious reason.

I do check the "EU central" sites every now and then (in my spare time; it often is a source of great amusement), albeit not on a strict timetable. I keep an eye out for anything that hints at possible tests of an EU idea, proposed by an EU zealot, and if I'd found any, I'd've posted here.

i think there were, of late, some new experiments wirh terrellas
i sm now on a short vacation, can see later if i can find the references

Any update?

Every now and then I come across things like this (dated 30 January, 2017):

I would point you to the Safire Project headed by Monty Childs, which is now in phase 2 as a mounting of evidence against the standard sun model. Being that it is an independent study and it’s a physical model study the accumulation of data is there to be challenged or confirmed. So far it’s been overwhelming confirmation against the standard solar model.

(source)

Here's Brian's response: "I’m well aware of the Safire Project, and that it’s nonsense."

Brian could have added that "the accumulation of data is there to be challenged or confirmed" is not available for anyone to download and analyze themselves (at least, AFAIK); rather there's few uncalibrated images, all of them looking like ducks.

 

[jonesdave116]

Wow, so I guess the abstract to their paper, when they publish (as if), will read something along the lines of:

"We stuck a gazillion volts of electricity, from the mains, through a metallic sphere. Results indicate that the observed behaviour was not consistent with a fusion powered ball of gas. Therefore we conclude that the Sun is probably not a metallic sphere powered by electricity."

Can't wait for that.

 

[Dancing David]

 

[JeanTate]

Yet another piece of evidence which shows that "the EU" is not even pseudoscience comes from the external discussion forum thread I cited in the LIGO's detection of GWR and "the VETO" thread here.

In that external source there was some discussion of additional tests - beyond what LIGO had already performed - to rule out sources of the GW150914 signal other than the merger of two solar-mass black holes; one such proposed test was (something like; this is my paraphrase) using satellite data to determine the state of the magnetosphere/ionosphere within a few (tens of) ms of the GW150914 signal, to see if there was some sort of geomagnetic/electromagnetic transient (the idea was that however good the very extensive set of LIGO environmental monitors - which certainly should have identified any such transient strong enough to create a LIGO signal - some kind of local transient may nevertheless have triggered a signal).

Leave aside the details - and shortcomings - of the particular idea and focus on its nature: it's a proposed test which would involve collecting data (obtained independently) and analyzing it, quantitatively! Further, that data may well be publicly available, essentially for free. In other words, the kind of thing I've had my eyes open for, in regard to tests of "the EU", for over a year now (in this thread alone). Tests proposed by EU zealots.

Does anyone else see something, um, amazing here? An EU zealot proposes a test of a major discovery in physics (and astrophysics), one which would involve data already available, and which could (in principle) be done in an objective and independently verifiable way!

So the ability to conceive these sorts of tests is proven, by the existence of one. Why, then, oh why do no EU zealots apparently apply such abilities to the testing of their own ideas? I submit the answer is both obvious and sad: testing of EU ideas is verboten. Or even inconceivable. Because "the EU" is in essence a religious cult.

Some more evidence of this comes from Slip Sticks and Wrong Theories, a Thunderdolts Pic o the day. Here's an extract:

It would be wrong to insist on using a slide rule to direct Cassini around Saturn’s moons. Just so, it’s wrong for Established Science to refuse to look at Arp’s findings of quantized intrinsic redshifts. Just so, it’s wrong to overlook Juergen’s insights into the electrical nature of the sun. It’s wrong to ignore Alfven’s admonition that plasmas don’t behave the way theoreticians believe and that there are large-scale currents in space. It’s wrong to dismiss the Thunderbolts of the Gods as “merely myth” in blind defiance of the intelligibility in the data. Turning a deaf ear, a blind eye, and a closed mind to this astronomical mass of evidence is intellectually irresponsible.

(my bold and hilite)

Leave aside the falsehoods (e.g. "Established Science" most certainly did NOT "refuse to look at Arp’s findings of quantized intrinsic redshifts"). Focus on the implied research programs (some examples only):

• investigating quantized redshifts (intrinsic or not)
• turning "Juergen's insights" into detailed proposals for new experiments and observations
• testing Alfven's ideas ("admonition") in the lab
• deriving testable hypotheses concerning ideas about large-scale currents in space

Developing any of these - and the likely dozens of others you could quickly come up with - takes little more than time, effort, a good internet connection, and the sorts of tools which PCs come with for free. Not things which are the monopoly of "Established Science".

So why hasn't Mel Acheson put some time and effort into developing at least one (apparently)? Why have the ~millions of EU fans not done so (apparently)?

I submit that there's a very good reason why no such proposals have been developed, and why none ever will: a key aspect of "the EU", the religious cult, is intellectual irresponsibility; one of its (unstated) core missions is to destroy science.

 

[jonesdave116]

As JT alluded to, the first thing they need to do is cut out the lies about what real science is actually doing or not doing. It makes them look pathetic. Thornhill's long running electric comet woo is just one prime example of that. In fact, if they want to move forward (I have no idea how), then they need to dump Thornhill and Talbott, and all the associated Velikovskian non-science. If you are basing your 'science' on misinterpretations of ancient myth, then you have already lost.
Maybe there are some hardcore PC advocates there who don't buy into that nonsense. They need to figure out whether or not they wish to be associated with such rubbish. I don't see where they can go, given the failure to match observation of Peratt's and Alfvén's models. If you need to call on the likes of Arp, Robitaille and Crothers to support your model, then it is already doomed.
No, I suspect it will carry on as is, flogging books and DVDs to the gullible, and basically being an anti-science, crackpot meeting place. Which is fine; what else would we have to talk about otherwise?

 

[Reality Check]

So why hasn't Mel Acheson put some time and effort into developing at least one (apparently)?

Could it be because he has blindly "swallowed the Kool-Aid"?
Or has a financial interest in EU being correct?
He is a coauthor with Talbott and Thornhill of their 'Thunderbolts of the Gods' book and Scott's 'The Electric Sky'.

I suspect the first since a look at his articles shows that he lies about science and EU. For example: Wanted: Cosmo-centric Ideas (2016)

• Arp's "intrinsic redshift" was based on his idea that quasars (galaxies!) erupted out of foreground galaxies, not any valid statistics or science.
• It is a lie that Thornhill is a researcher who has discovered anything about electrical discharges.
• A bit of ignorance - it was not "Birkeland before 1900".
  Birkeland published his book in 1913.
• A lie of "The legends of our prehistoric great-grandparents from around the globe tell a coherent story".
  The legends of prehistoric people vary greatly.

Gravity vs. Plasma is abysmal ignorance of plasma and science

The mathematical shorthand that was developed for articulating the gravity view and for using the technologies based on it doesn’t work for the plasma view. A new mathematics-and new technologies-will need to be invented.

Gravity and plasma are different things with different mathematics !
"New mathematics" for plasma has been in existence since at least 1942: Magnetohydrodynamics
"New technologies" have been studying plasma for over a century - first seen in 1879 , the term coined in 1928: Plasma

Playing the Jokers

• A lie that the evidence for an expanding universe is not just Hubble's law.
• A lie about Hannes Alfven (his "large distances" for plasma effects were not cosmological scales).
• A "assumption of isolation" lie.
  It is physics that shows that bodies such as galaxies are electromagnetically isolated but not gravitationally.
• "lightning discharges" delusions.

Plasma Star = EU delusions about CH Cygni.
Dark Dreams is basically the delusion that we have to see individual stars forming to know how they form!
Consequence-free Cosmology is the delusion that colliding galaxies are cosmology with a "divide by zero" lie about the black holes mentioned in the Chandra article: NGC 2207 and IC 2163: Galactic Get-Together has Impressive Light Display
The Colors of Thought is the Colors of Delusion! A delusion of the variation of measurements of c meaning that every equation where it appears must be wrong (specifically "Stefan’s Law" which is actually the Stefan–Boltzmann law). A link to the ignorant Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille delusion that Kirchhoff's Law is wrong.
Another Fogged Image of Stephan’s Quintet is an incoherent, deluded post. A lie of "redshift as a cosmic meterstick has been disproved since the 1960s". A delusion that the tails on the foreground galaxy and background galaxy are interacting. A delusion of "paired ejection from an active galaxy". The delusion that galaxies are solid when a bright background quasar can shine through a galaxy - we can image galaxies through the Milky Way ! Argument from incredibility ("At 70 million Kelvin, the heating is truly shocking"). A lie about that temperature being a "runaway extrapolation from a theory about solids".
Captives of Simplifying Assumptions = a non-science rant about the orbit of SOHO.
Wishing for Theories = a lie of a "consensus conjecture of stellar evolution" followed by an irrelevant rant with EU delusions, e.g. "the star may fission into two or more pieces".
Artistic Spin = EU delusions irrelevant to the reported science (Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years).
An Itsy-Bitsy Spider = a new Halton Arp error? He stated in a book that galaxies ejected dusty plasma. Mel Acheson has the delusion that an ESO observation is that plasma ejection. The reality is that it is star formation in an unexpected location in the cluster around the Spiderweb Galaxy: Construction Secrets of a Galactic Metropolis
Blast of Gas = a lie that EU can explain the flow of gas in NGC 253 (The Sculptor Galaxy) followed by ignorant ranting, e.g.that astronomers using the term gas means whatever he imagines will happen, happens.
Butterflies on a String = ignorance and delusions about planetary nebula. It is not "old stars", it is old red giant stars. Theory and observation supports shells of material being blown off these old red giant stars. The idiocy of calling science fantasy. EU Birkeland currents delusions. No link to the science which looks like: Bizarre alignment of planetary nebulae
Gravitation as Frog = ignorance and "frog" ranting. An uncited "Ilya Prigogine" who looks like the chemist Ilya Prigogine . G is hard to measure so its value doe vary between experiments - well Duh! Newtonian gravitation states that galaxy rotation curves have to be explained by adding dark matter. An inane, irrelevant derail to Halton Arp's invalid ideas.
Super Exploding Double Layer = the title alone is an EU delusion and the contents confirm it!