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

[jonesdave116]

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

Ahh, yes, that reminds me that Brian Koberlein made a post on Scott's egregious error regarding the M2-9 Butterfly nebula:
https://briankoberlein.com/2015/01/30/known-unknowns/
Scott suggested it was a Z-pinch! Oh dear.

M2-9: A PLANETARY NEBULA WITH AN ERUPTIVE NUCLEUS?
Balick, B. (1989)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989AJ.....97..476B

Scott's nonsense (warning: PDF opens automatically)
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-41-13.PDF
See Fig. 10

As any eejit can see, Fig. 2 from Balicks paper (only 26 years for Scott to dig it out!) shows negative velocity (towards the viewer) to the left, and positive velocity (away from the viewer) to the right of the figure. I'm not aware that Z-pinches can actually do that! Apparently, neither is Scott. More 'looks like a duck' failure.

 

[ferd burfle]

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.

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?

I agree the message is anti-science but I think the goal is to monetize a conspiracy theory. They're feeding the need of the ignorant faithful to think they're privy to special knowledge, that their leaders are "taking it to the man". Nonsense like SAFIRE is a means to put butts in conference seats, and I think those involved know they're not doing science. Others associated with the EU are hardcore cranks, who I think believe for the most part the unscientific nonsense they put forth.

 

[ferd burfle]

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.

The last time I checked Monty Child's SAFIRE update talk video from the EU June 2016 conference was behind a paywall at the Silly Site. So I skimmed it today on YT to catch up. They have a biqgger vacuum chamber and power supply now but the conceit is still the same: they're breaking totally new ground in plasma physics and that's why they just, you know, try stuff. At times, it almost looks like science, but one of the last slides in Monty's talk gives the game away. Under the heading "Questions", meaning question raised by managing to create a plasma with the new kit, he asks:

-Are we getting transformation (sic) of elements?
-Are we getting more energy out than in?
-What does the voltage gradient look like before SAFIRE fires?
-Will we get X-rays, Neutrons, Gamma rays etc?

I predict, this "project" will produce endless "progress" but will always be just one little tweak away from that Nobel-winning breakthrough. Yup, this baby's got legs.

 

[jonesdave116]

I predict, this "project" will produce endless "progress" but will always be just one little tweak away from that Nobel-winning breakthrough. Yup, this baby's got legs.

I suspect that Monty is onto a nice little earner, and is in absolutely no rush to come to any conclusions!

 

[fuelair]

It used to be, some years' ago, that Electric Universe (EU) proponents were many, and highly vocal. Look at the number of EU-related threads in the archives of ISF, for example.

These days, those proponents have retreated to Eejet-Tube vids, and unmoderated fora; even their fave forum today has little traffic.

One thing has always baffled me about the EU, and its fanatics: an apparent, complete, lack of any research proposals.

For example, all over the internet you'll find people asking EU fans things like "if you had total control over all the world's leading astronomical facilities - telescopes etc - where would you point them?" or "given unlimited funds, what experiments, here on Earth, would you conduct?" Yet, aside from SAFIRE and perhaps Lerner's Focus Fusion, there are no answers!

At least, none that I could find.

Which I find baffling.

I mean, isn't there even one EU adherent who is curious enough to think about doing an experiment, or making an observation, to test EU ideas? It seems to me that it'd take just one such to vastly improve the EU's standing (assuming the results of such experiments or observations were consistent with "EU theory", whatever that is).

Hence this thread: do any of you, dear readers, know of any published research projects/programs/experiments/observations, proposed by EU supporters (other than SAFIRE and Lerner's Focus Fusion)?

You seem to be under the delusion that persons who believe crap know how to do science. I have never within my memory found that to be the case. Essentially all of that type just find something that , while completely wrong, seems to make sense to them so they do their dead level best to store it in their brains and then lock them up and destroy the key. It is very, very sad, but at least they are happy believing they KNOW THE TRUTH!!!!!

 

[JeanTate]

Nice work, RC!

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

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!

I have - so far - looked at only a handful of these.

If you're not too critical, several could pass as ill-informed essays on the history and philosophy of science (e.g. "Wanted: Cosmo-centric Ideas").

Others, however, reveal fundamental inconsistencies which the author - and most EU zealots and fans - seems completely oblivious to.

Take "Plasma Star", for example (extract):

Recent images of the star CH Cygni reveal the electrical circuitry that drives it. Radiation in radio (blue), optical (green), and X-ray (red) highlight the several inner components of the plasma discharge.

The outer red circle (large optical image) is composed of radial filaments. This is a region of increased density where the plasma has jumped into glow mode. It shows a cross section of the interstellar Birkeland cable as it pinches down to form the star. Its circularity indicates that we are viewing the star down the axis of the cable: The radial filaments appear foreshortened in consequence.

The string of green “sausages” in the “jet” near the center shows the narrowest region of the pinch as the current flows into the star. The increase in current density has again pushed the plasma into glow mode. Instabilities, called “sausage” instabilities, have caused secondary pinches to break the jet into cells. The curled shape is the result of viewing the current down the axis as it spirals around that axis. The star at the center is a binary.

Start with "The outer red circle (large optical image) is composed of radial filaments.": OK, that can be interpreted as a semi-objective statement concerning morphology; semi-objective because there's no analysis, no source cited, etc ...

Next sentence: "This is a region of increased density where the plasma has jumped into glow mode." Really? How was that conclusion arrived at? AFAICS, it's pure a "looks like a duck" subjective speculation. In fact, I'd be astonished to learn that there's even a minimally quantitative model somewhere, used to guide the visual interpretation.

One more sentence: "The string of green “sausages” in the “jet” near the center shows the narrowest region of the pinch as the current flows into the star." OK, actually two; this is the image caption: "A composite image of X-ray data from Chandra (red), optical data from the Hubble Space Telescope (green), and radio data from the Very Large Array (blue)."

Yeah, the author would not get high marks for accuracy (no Mel, red is X-ray, not optical), nor the editor for proof reading.

But a fundamental inconsistency is in these innocent words: "X-ray data from Chandra (red), optical data from the Hubble Space Telescope (green)" Data Mel? What investigations did you undertake to convince yourself that any of this data is reliable? Both Chandra and the HST are space-based missions whose design, construction, launch, testing, and on-going operation include "consensus belief" (your words, Mel) that huge parts of mainstream physics actually work, parts which you are on record as stating do not work. Like relativity. Newton's law of universal gravitation. Ditto the data: have you ever examined the way stuff which happens in sensors up in space ends up as pixels in an image on an internet website? Did you count the number of places where there is "consensus belief" in bits of physics or mathematics which you have explicitly denied?

tl;dr unless and until Mel comes clean about why - in detail - he can accept the veracity of data from space-based observatories (given his record of denying so much of the physics involved), even his "looks like a duck" speculations reek of hypocrisy.

 

[Reality Check]

A little bump: No real news from the SAFIRE project for over a year and getting to 2 years!
The project was proposed in 2013.
December 2014: Brian Koberlein described it as useful as concluding that light is water because we see similar patterns (Quacks Like a Duck).
23 September 2015: The only published paper with no EU nonsense: Study of striations in a spherically symmetric hydrogen discharge
2013-2016: Various YouTube videos, e.g. of EU conference presentations.

That is maybe 4 years to do a relatively simple task of tweaking a plasma globe to look like features of the Sun and do what looks like standard plasma measurements. The EU2017 conference next month promises actual delusions about the project:

Building on the past year of experimentation and analysis, the SAFIRE Project has moved into Phase 3, which takes the lessons from the Phase 1 Proof of Concept Prototype into a much larger chamber. Phase 1 ended on a cliff-hanger with indications of fusion and transient million-fold CME-like eruptions.

A delusion of fusion in a plasma globe as if they were ignorant about the technological challenges of producing the high temperatures and pressures needed for fusion! Those "CME-like eruptions" supports a "quacks like a duck" or "I see bunnies in the clouds" situation.

 

[jonesdave116]

A little bump: No real news from the SAFIRE project for over a year and getting to 2 years!
The project was proposed in 2013.
December 2014: Brian Koberlein described it as useful as concluding that light is water because we see similar patterns (Quacks Like a Duck).
23 September 2015: The only published paper with no EU nonsense: Study of striations in a spherically symmetric hydrogen discharge
2013-2016: Various YouTube videos, e.g. of EU conference presentations.

That is maybe 4 years to do a relatively simple task of tweaking a plasma globe to look like features of the Sun and do what looks like standard plasma measurements. The EU2017 conference next month promises actual delusions about the project:

A delusion of fusion in a plasma globe as if they were ignorant about the technological challenges of producing the high temperatures and pressures needed for fusion! Those "CME-like eruptions" supports a "quacks like a duck" or "I see bunnies in the clouds" situation.

Oh dear. Are they still doing this? Why, exactly? It is provable beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the loon Scott's electric sun idea is dead before it starts! Deary, deary me. There may be people in the PU community (still nutters, but not quite so bad), who could have used money like this to design software applications to update Peratt's failed model. Yet they waste it on something that is trivially proven wrong before it starts! Bizarre.
Where is their current? Where is the accompanying magnetic field? Where is the interaction between these two fields (IMF & incoming field)? What would happen when these two fields met? Et boring cetera. Lunatics, I tell ya.

 

[JeanTate]

I still haven't seen anything from an Electric Universe fan that could be viewed as even the outline of a possible research program.

However, the responses to a Bob_Ham's fairy recent posts (he seems to have been banned), especially in the Thunderdolts thread "Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?", seem to point to one reason any such outline would be very difficult for such fans to even conceive, let alone write (great source of humor though!) ...

Putting a positive spin on what's in those threads: ISF member BeAChooser has written about "filaments", per what he sees in some astronomical data. Some of these ideas could, with some effort, perhaps be turned into a first draft of a program ...

 

[JeanTate]

Almost six months have passed, and still not the slightest sign of anything remotely resembling even the outline of a possible scientific research program (why am I not surprised?).

The citizen science "voting" phase of the ZooGems project has now closed, as it has for the companion Radio GalaxyZooGems project.

I think these provide an illustration, by way of contrast, of the science-bereft nature of the Electric Universe idea and its community. How so? Read on ...

The Zooniverse arose from the hugely successful online, crowd-sourcing, citizen science project, Galaxy Zoo (GZ). The Zooniverse team has developed something they call Project Builder, which is open and public. Anyone can use it to create an online, crowd-sourcing, citizen science project. In subject/topics limited only by your imagination. And the results from such projects have led to hundreds of scientific papers, with many an interesting, often unexpected, discovery. Certainly not just in astronomy.

Yet, despite several avid EUers being well aware of this sort of thing, I've never seen so much as a peep about how such a platform/tool could be used to do some interesting scientific research, based on EU ideas!

What can account for this amazing, apparently complete, lack of interest?

 

[fuelair]

By the by, since I do not try to follow crap "science" I do not know if the number 67 has any meaning/use in EU dreams (not nearly up to theories in scientific usage)' Just curious'

 

[jonesdave116]

What can account for this amazing, apparently complete, lack of interest?

Errrm, an inability to understand the requisite science would be my guess!

I notice that Brian Koberlein has disabled comments on his blog, but a recent reading (before they went down) of the nonsense proposed in the comments on his latest blog on EU, and the previous one from a few years ago, would back that up.

BK gets excoriated by a certain poster for not knowing that Thornhill & Scott changed their electric sun models to accommodate neutrinos. Big deal. The poster fails to realise that such nonsense doesn't match observation, so arguing about whether or not these loons propose neutrinos is neither here nor there. I'd love to see where Thornhill & Scott have explained this in detail, but can only find a comment by Thornhill on a silly EU video, where he claims it is happening at the surface due to the 'nucleosynthesis of heavy elements.'
Of course, this doesn't match observation, as the neutrino count would be heavily stacked toward the part of the energy spectrum of the heavier element neutrino production; it isn't. It would also mean there would be intense gamma rays observed from surface fusion. They aren't.
So getting in a huff about what these woomeisters propose is pointless, when their explanations are scientifically illiterate, and simply don't match observation.
Then there was another loon suggesting that Brian was out of date, and it was fission that caused the neutrinos! To the best of my knowledge, fission only produces anti-neutrinos, although I'm happy to be corrected.

So, all in all, I think it backs up something I've said before; it takes a considerable amount of scientific ignorance to even give EU ideas any head space. And as JT has said before; whatever EU is, it certainly isn't science.

 

[fuelair]

By the by, since I do not try to follow crap "science" I do not know if the number 67 has any meaning/use in EU dreams (not nearly up to theories in scientific usage)' Just curious'

Perhaps they were off by two and actually wanted 69...........

 

[Reality Check]

No updates on the SAFIRE project but their web site has some serious crackpottery.
Home page: "Current areas of study include * Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)".
Pressing "questions" that are at least partially deluded.

• "Are nuclear reactions on the sun a cause or consequence of the sun shining?" (idiocy that fusion on the sun would not be detectable as gamma rays fry the Earth!)
• "Is the photosphere the outer skin of a superhot core or the visible edge of an electric discharge?" (the photosphere is plasma, a layer around the sun and has convection cells!)
• "Are there some aspects of observed cometary behavior that are more simply explained including an electric potential within the solar system?" (no)
• "Are the known electric fields and currents around the earth more simply explained by the model of the Earth being immersed within larger electrical potentials within the solar system?" (no)

A "results" page with

• A lie of a proposal ignoring their apparatus being results.
• A image with the caption "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions found in Hydrogen impregnated metalic electrodes."
• A image of a cartoon with the caption "Measurement of ion temperatures in anode tufts and their relation to solar coronal prominences"

Plus that W Lowell Morgan, Montgomery W Childs. 2015 standard plasma physics paper.

 

[SelfSim]

Errrm, an inability to understand the requisite science would be my guess!

I notice that Brian Koberlein has disabled comments on his blog, but a recent reading (before they went down) of the nonsense proposed in the comments on his latest blog on EU, and the previous one from a few years ago, would back that up.

One might imagine this as being only a temporary measure(?) The mainstream debunks contained in the blog comments served as highly useful reference material, after all.
(Bring 'em back if possible, Brian! .. )

BK gets excoriated by a certain poster for not knowing that Thornhill & Scott changed their electric sun models to accommodate neutrinos. Big deal.

An aside: just had a looong discussion with (I think) the same poster you're referring to on the topic of Olber's Paradox in infinite static universes. A somewhat dated Scott paper surfaced which contained yet more classic Scott blunders on the related surface brightness invariance with distance sub-topic ... Scott just can't seem to get any breaks whatsoever, given that he also recently re-affirmed the arguments in this errored paper, (presumably as part of his attempt to jemmy his way into cosmology)!
PS: Oh yes .. the poster I think you're referring to, also discarded the same paper, (presumably though, because it didn't agree with his beliefs).

... Of course, this doesn't match observation, as the neutrino count would be heavily stacked toward the part of the energy spectrum of the heavier element neutrino production; it isn't. It would also mean there would be intense gamma rays observed from surface fusion. They aren't.

And hilariously, the lame excuse of assumed pinch produced gammas being absorbed by the atmosphere above the assumed electrode surface, (before it exits the photosphere), also has to be assumed ... and never demonstrated with a real model ... (after all, that would be a violation of the 'EU conde of quantitative modelling silence'!)

So getting in a huff about what these woomeisters propose is pointless, when their explanations are scientifically illiterate, and simply don't match observation.
Then there was another loon suggesting that Brian was out of date, and it was fission that caused the neutrinos! To the best of my knowledge, fission only produces anti-neutrinos, although I'm happy to be corrected.

So, all in all, I think it backs up something I've said before; it takes a considerable amount of scientific ignorance to even give EU ideas any head space. And as JT has said before; whatever EU is, it certainly isn't science.

Really goes without saying, eh? (But thanks for saying it anyway).

 

[jonesdave116]

And hilariously, the lame excuse of assumed pinch produced gammas being absorbed by the atmosphere above the assumed electrode surface, (before it exits the photosphere), also has to be assumed ... and never demonstrated with a real model ... (after all, that would be a violation of the 'EU conde of quantitative modelling silence'!)

Yep, that is precisely the sort of idiocy I'm talking about! So, who has done the maths and science on this? How deep below the photosphere would Thornhill and Scott's woo need to be to have all the gamma radiation blocked? Last I read, the photosphere was about 1 x 10^-6 the density of Earth's atmosphere at sea level. I assume (not really) that one of those geniuses has worked this out? I suspect their answer would be - "you work it out, and that is how deep it'll be!"
And the pp neutrinos have been detected by Borexino, and match very well with the standard model. For the uninitiated, those are the lowest energy neutrinos, that were very difficult to detect previously, but account for the vast majority of the fusion going on in the solar core. From the reaction:
p + p --> ²H + e⁺ + v_e
So, we know that this accounts for ~ 99% of the Sun's energy. There is no place left for Thornhill's 'heavy element' nucleosynthesis at the surface. It has to be from hydrogen fusion. Hydrogen fuses at ~ 4 million K.

Neutrinos from the primary proton–proton fusion process in the Sun
Borexino Collaboration
http://mcba11.phys.unsw.edu.au/~mcba/PHYS3160/n.pdf

Of course, that is only one of the problems caused by some non-event EE suggesting this electric sun nonsense back in the 70s. There is also the invisible incoming current. Presumably this current carries with it a magnetic field. What will happen when this bunch of electrons (presumably) and their associated magnetic field encounter the outflowing electrons and ions of the solar wind, and their associated magnetic field (the IMF)? Shouldn't be hard to model for the plasma geniuses of EU. In fact, I could give it a decent go with pencil and paper, although it would be better left to Tusenfem. It wouldn't be pretty, and would be extremely obvious! Simply isn't happening, which is why nobody takes this nonsense seriously.

And then there is the usual nonsense about Birkeland, and his various models for the Sun - models I'm sure he'd have chucked in the dustbin if he'd been around when nuclear fusion was discovered. I expect he'd be flabbergasted that people (one person?) a hundred years on were still holding onto his pre-nuclear musings, given what we know now.

 

[JeanTate]

Nothing new, but it’s worth repeating: the Zooniverse project, Radio Galaxy Zoo, looks at blobs of plasma, as revealed by their radio emission.

Surely one of the most direct probes into the nature of extra-galactic plasmas.

I’d have expected EU acolytes to be swarming all over it, yet not a peep, in, what, more than four years.

 

[SelfSim]

Nothing new, but it’s worth repeating: the Zooniverse project, Radio Galaxy Zoo, looks at blobs of plasma, as revealed by their radio emission.

Surely one of the most direct probes into the nature of extra-galactic plasmas.

I’d have expected EU acolytes to be swarming all over it, yet not a peep, in, what, more than four years.

Why would they bother when the mantra clearly lays down the primary EU law (lore?) of:

'Never be seen as questioning the primary assumptions of the holy scriptures .. especially concerning the ubiquitous universal plasma'

 

[JeanTate]

Errrm, an inability to understand the requisite science would be my guess!

I notice that Brian Koberlein has disabled comments on his blog, but a recent reading (before they went down) of the nonsense proposed in the comments on his latest blog on EU, and the previous one from a few years ago, would back that up.

BK gets excoriated by a certain poster for not knowing that Thornhill & Scott changed their electric sun models to accommodate neutrinos. Big deal. The poster fails to realise that such nonsense doesn't match observation, so arguing about whether or not these loons propose neutrinos is neither here nor there. I'd love to see where Thornhill & Scott have explained this in detail, but can only find a comment by Thornhill on a silly EU video, where he claims it is happening at the surface due to the 'nucleosynthesis of heavy elements.'

Personally, I’m a by surprised that BK has kept the comments up for so long.

EU nonsense has been thoroughly shown to be, well, inconsistent, not science etc, and a rather large number of EU acolytes more interested in trivial arguments than in discussing science. So continuing to allow comments permits these ideas to be endlessly repeated, without anyone becoming any wiser.

These days it’s such a fringe activity perhaps it’s best to just ignore it.

So, all in all, I think it backs up something I've said before; it takes a considerable amount of scientific ignorance to even give EU ideas any head space. And as JT has said before; whatever EU is, it certainly isn't science.

I just dropped in to EU central ... same old, same old.

 

[SelfSim]

... EU nonsense has been thoroughly shown to be, well, inconsistent, not science etc, and a rather large number of EU acolytes more interested in trivial arguments than in discussing science. So continuing to allow comments permits these ideas to be endlessly repeated, without anyone becoming any wiser.

These days it’s such a fringe activity perhaps it’s best to just ignore it.
...
I just dropped in to EU central ... same old, same old.

I think so, also.

One could even take the position that, in the overall 'rankings' from amongst the set of 'Non-standard cosmologies', EU (& TBolts) has even done considerable damage to say, Plasma Cosmology.

The recent CQ ATM thread 'Is the Universe Static?' and Crawford's accompanying paper, at least demonstrated his willingness to put pen-to-paper, and perform analysis on what he thought was raw SN data. That he showed no particular affiliations with the EU nonsense, also raised the credibility of his arguments, thereby warranting more attention than EU ramblings, (IMO).