How did crackpot Electric Universe papers get published in a peer-reviewed journal?

[DeiRenDopa]

DeiRenDopa,
The refered papers are clear in what issues they discuss, and Bentham Open has provided a special issue on these cosmologies. It is said that there exists dozens of cosmologies - but they are for the most amended versions of expansion and gravity-only models. Plasma cosmology and electric universe cosmology are proper counter parts to the standard cosmological model. As such, the inclusion by Bentham Open should be regarded a sign of scientific integrity. If some honorary editors of the journal wants to withdraw due to that, that's their call.

Welcome to the show, Siggy_G (if a little late).

You seem to be as off-topic as Farsight was!

I thought the post I wrote, at the start of this thread (and several of the ones subsequently) were crystal clear. I have not said anything about whether OAJ (or any other journal) should, or should not, publish material - whether a Special Issue or not.

What I pointed out is that there is a gross inconsistency between the stated aims of OAJ and the contents of the Special Issue (edited by Dunning-Davies); in particular, there is lots of evidence that the papers were not (peer) reviewed*.

Did you address this point? No, you did not (details to follow).

Despite your representation of the quite common heavy bias against any minority point of view in cosmology, it can for instance be added that Dr Alv Egeland, Research Section for Plasma and Space Physics at the University of Oslo, has stated the following, in his article "Kristian Birkeland - The first space scientist" from 2009:




This electromagnetic mechanism is one of the corner stones for Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe. For you to claim that the discussed papers, describing those cosmologies and their different focus from the standard model, should be sealed from further reading, has little to do with science.

(bold added)

Now of course I did not make such a claim!

Can you honestly say that you actually read (and understood) what I actually wrote?!?!?

* caveat: they may have been (peer) reviewed, but the editor ignored the reviewer(s)' comments, and published anyway (etc).

 

[ben m]

There are peer-reviewed papers*, also recent ones, discussing how observational data is in favour of a non-expanding universe, so the reigning assumption that 'space just has to expand' has nothing to do with being the only interpretation or a settled subject. As such, it is kind of an unscientific claim.

* I'll include a couple:
"Observational Evidence Favours a Static Universe (Part 1)"
"Is the Universe really expanding?"

No there aren't. The former paper is in a crackpot panspermia journal which only publishes (in the cosmology domain) papers claiming the Big Bang is wrong. (Is that how real scientific controversies work? Imagine if ApJ only accepted "Type-1a supernovae are binary mergers" papers, and A&A only accepted "Type-1a supernovae are accreting binaries" papers.)

(Other "notable" Journal of Cosmology authors: Robert L. Oldershaw, Hilton Ratcliffe, Oliver Manuel, Christian Corda, Herman Mosquera Cuesta (!) and an extraordinary number of articles by editors Schild and Gibson.)

The latter paper is a non-peer-reviewed ArXiV upload.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

For example, consider this: "The work on plasmas and other electromagnetic phenomena has inspired some people to examine astronomical phenomena in these terms and this has resulted in the so-called Electric Universe idea as expounded, " Taken in context, this strongly implies that Hannes Alfvén did not do any work on plasma cosmology. If nothing else, this is revisionism of the worst possible kind.

That's clearly your interpretation of that description. Why wouldn't "the work on plasmas and other electromagnetic phenomena" not include Hannes Alfvén's work as well? Anyway, it says so in the section above the one you cited.

Did you actually read Dunning-Davies so-called paper Siggy_G?!?

You, of all people, should be deeply offended by what he wrote.

Go read, or re-read, all the published papers on Plasma Cosmology, and then come back and try to say, with a straight face, that Alfvén is but a minor, bit player, whose contribution to the field can be glossed over with the barest of oblique hints.

Do you honestly think that Alfvén's role in Plasma Cosmology is any less important than Newton's in classical physics?!?!?

Equally appalling is the total censorship - by omission - of the entire field of plasma astrophysics. At the very least, an editorial on this topic, in a journal with the aims as stated, should include mention of the sort of research covered in WOPA 2010, especially as Dunning-Davies writes "However, after those early years of the century, the emphasis seems to have shifted to explanations of phenomena purely in terms of gravitational effects as far as most mainline research has been concerned." (this sentence is about as close to academic libel - or slander, I get the two confused - as never mind).

As I read the section of the paper, the purpose is to point to the focus mainstream research has had within cosmology; herby gravitational interpretations of data and explanations along those terms: dark matter, black holes, gravitational cosmic batteries and so on. That, as opposed to Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe notions. Thornhill has stated in many other occasions that he is convinced that the future of astrophysics lies in the hands of radio astronomers and plasma physicists - agree to it or not. So I doubt there is an intentional omission of plasma astrophysics. Also, why wouldn't "the work on plasmas and other electromagnetic phenomena has inspired" not include plasma astrophysics work?

Academic, and intellectual honesty and integrity, Siggy_G, that's what's missing.

Now we all know that Thornhill has no such honesty or integrity - he has openly declared Electric Universe to be some kind of religion - so no one is the least bit surprised at his lies of omission.

But Dunning-Davies is the editor of this Special Issue, and, given his many years in an academic position at a university, he could be expected to at least acknowledge the vast body of published work in the field of plasma astrophysics.

One good thing though: you have confirmed, in this post, that, in the EU community, this sort of censorship is perfectly acceptable (most members here already knew that, of course, but it's nice to have you confirm it so openly).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Here's an example which supports the 'no review at all' hypothesis. (...) So it would seem that Smith is contradicting Dunning-Davies, and rather bluntly too. How likely is it that Dunning-Davies - editor of this Special Issue - would have allowed such an inconsistency to be published, if he had, in fact, actually reviewed Smith's draft?

I don't see the contradiction. Smith refers to the common description of the Doppler effect and its relation to redshift (and blueshift).

Yeah, right.

Except that OAJ "aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on current developments in the field. The emphasis will be on publishing quality papers"

Dude, the author of a (supposedly) serious paper, aimed at professional astrophysicists, doesn't "refer to the common description of the Doppler effect" when talking about cosmological redshift! That might be OK on Thunderdolts, where almost no one seems to know how to even spell quantitative (much less know the difference between Newtonian mechanics and GR).

He also refers to the traditional methods, which certainly was the velocity-distance correlation. Dunning-Davis has an additional section describing that the theory's assumed cause for redshift values is photon stretching due to metric expansion of space. Metric expansion of space, if we imagine that there was a physical mechanism for it, between a light source and the observer would be observed as recession speed, where the redshift would be additionally affected during the photon's travel distance. It is related to Doppler theory regardless - but here including a non-physical medium behaviour.

(bold added)

He does? And on which page of Dunning-Davies paper may this be found? In which paragraph?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Do we really want to derail this thread into a decussion of the (IMO crackpot) electric universe theories. There are other threads for that.

Yeah, funny that isn't it?

An EU heavyweight comes in and starts posting about content, completely ignoring the central point of this whole thread.

Do they teach you this diversionary tactic, Siggy_G, in EU marketing school?

I notice that you have nothing to say about Thornhill's lack of attribution of so many of the Figures in his paper (no, they're not his own work, he copy-pasted them from others' work); nor about Smith citing Lieu et al. but grossly mis-representing their findings; nor about Scott's use of press releases as primary sources; nor ...

 

[ben m]

DeiRenDopa,
The refered papers are clear in what issues they discuss, and Bentham Open has provided a special issue on these cosmologies.

Let me put it another way. Suppose that, last week, Bob Bloggs put up a webpage at bobbloggs.geocities.com. And he slaps onto that webpage the title "Bobs Journal of Quatnum Biocosmology", and a week later posts a collection of five articles by his golf buddies: "A Survey of Bobs' Quantum bio-Cosmo PHysics" (by Bob Bloggs), "Quantum WTC Demolicion" (by Nate Bloggs), "The LHC Will Destroy The Earth" (by Walter Wagner, Bob's next-door neighbor), and "Chemtrails?; Sentient Dark Matter?" (by Paul Bloggs and Walter Wagner).

And suppose that a bunch of people had a laugh at the nonsensical contents of these articles. Is that a problem? Suppose we had a laugh at Bobs Journal, since only a very bad journal would publish such crap. Is that a problem? And suppose that we further noticed that most of the articles were by Bob's relatives, and further laughed because it implies a willing vanity-press-like attitude by the journal. Is that a problem?

No? Well, that's what we're doing to Bentham. It published some Bob-Bloggs-grade nonsense, it published it in a amusing and chummy way, and now it's getting made fun of for it. What did you expect? You've seen this exact content get made fun of before, why would reformatting and reprinting it get a different reaction?

 

[BravesFan]

I just read the rest of the Thornhill paper..... I must say he has a very convenient method for dealing with the different classifications and life cycles of stars. But , it truly seemed made up. Like, chock full of weed and Scotch over a weekend made up. The example of a pinched diet coke can as evidence for electromagnet formations of galaxies and quasars?

it all seems very elegant and simple. But there are so many things that make his assumptions and conclusion patently impossible, that I find it embarrassing that this was published as a supposed "peer reviewed "paper. reviewed by who? His mom?

 

[Siggy_G]

I thought the post I wrote, at the start of this thread (and several of the ones subsequently) were crystal clear. I have not said anything about whether OAJ (or any other journal) should, or should not, publish material - whether a Special Issue or not.

(...)

Can you honestly say that you actually read (and understood) what I actually wrote?!?!?

From reading the thread heading and your first posts it seems rather obvious that your main concern and dislike is that these papers were published in the first place. The main purpose of scientific journals is to report new research and review papers to make sure they are internally consistent and suitable for publication. What you claim as evident lack of review for the discussed papers is questionable.

 

[Siggy_G]

The former paper is in a crackpot panspermia journal which only publishes (in the cosmology domain) papers claiming the Big Bang is wrong. (Is that how real scientific controversies work? Imagine if ApJ only accepted "Type-1a supernovae are binary mergers" papers, and A&A only accepted "Type-1a supernovae are accreting binaries" papers.)

That would depend on which grounds one journal typically rejects given papers. If they are rejected because they are not in-line with the standard model, then new interpretation will hardly get through. Regardless, I don't see the problem if one journal focus on alternative cosmology - in comparison to the specialization of any other scientific journal. Preferably, papers should be available in the journals with widest range, but see the initial sentence.

The latter paper is a non-peer-reviewed ArXiV upload.

From your statements, it seems like a paper's author, content and references are irrelevant. Don't discard the content out of hand. The main purpose of peer reviewing must be for qualified peers to check that the data is correctly based on cited references and that interpretation methods are consistent. I would of course need to agree that the peer reviewer typically has better basis to evaluate this than the average reader. It is very curious though to see researchers devoting much effort (papers/books) into finding new interpretations - and this can be regarded a sign that new approaches are needed in given fields.

 

[Siggy_G]

He does? And on which page of Dunning-Davies paper may this be found? In which paragraph?

That was from the unpublished paper you quoted as a comparison between Smith's mention of redshift. I described that there wasn't a contradiction between the two as you claimed. (The labeling of metric expansion of space as a "non-physical medium behaviour" was my words). Your "no review at all" hypothesis was misguided.

BTW, what do you mean regarding Thornhill's lack of attribution in his paper? There was 76 specific references within the paper, and images seem to be properly described and credited.

 

[ben m]

The main purpose of scientific journals is to report new research and review papers to make sure they are internally consistent and suitable for publication. What you claim as evident lack of review for the discussed papers is questionable.

So you're not bothered by the quote from the Smith paper

One of the problems with CMB theory is that IF it is the most distant thing we can see, (a remnant of the Big Bang) then we should observe the silhouettes of galaxy clusters and other major cosmic structures imposed on this image, which we do not [5]

which pretends to be citing Reference 5 for support, although Reference 5 in fact says the exact opposite (i.e., that we DO see the silhouettes, exactly as predicted?)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

From reading the thread heading and your first posts it seems rather obvious that your main concern and dislike is that these papers were published in the first place.

If that's what you took away, then let me say, as clearly and unambiguously as I can:

My main concern was - and still is - that the five papers in that OAJ Special Issue were published, in spite of the expressly, and clearly, stated aim of OAJ.

If you have any questions concerning my main concern, please state them; I will be more than happy to elaborate in as much detail as necessary, to address all your questions and issues (on this matter).

The main purpose of scientific journals is to report new research and review papers to make sure they are internally consistent and suitable for publication. What you claim as evident lack of review for the discussed papers is questionable.

Thank you for stating your opinion.

It is exactly that sort of opinion that I was hoping to have a rational discussion of (or on), in this thread.

So, why - in detail - do you think that what I have claimed "as evident lack of review for the discussed papers is questionable"?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The rest of this post of yours, Siggy_G, is less interesting, in terms of the scope of this thread, etc, than this part:

It is very curious though to see researchers devoting much effort (papers/books) into finding new interpretations - and this can be regarded a sign that new approaches are needed in given fields.

(bold added)

I think you have a very strange idea about the nature of science (well, at least astrophysics, astronomy, etc).

Can you elaborate please?

What is it that you think drives research in astrophysics? Please be as clear, and specific, as you can.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Did you actually read Dunning-Davies so-called paper Siggy_G?!? You, of all people, should be deeply offended by what he wrote.

Go read, or re-read, all the published papers on Plasma Cosmology, and then come back and try to say, with a straight face, that Alfvén is but a minor, bit player, whose contribution to the field can be glossed over with the barest of oblique hints.

Dunning-Davis' brief introduction to Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe seems correct to me and I don't spot any offence to either, nor to Alfvén. The paper is called "Some Initial Thoughts on Plasma Cosmology"...

Well, thanks for your honesty.

Do you honestly think that a similar "Some Initial Thoughts on LCDM Cosmology" would not be grossly offensive if it said this, about Einstein?

"Considering that it is accepted that much of the universe is in the form of mass, this seems a retrograde step and this view is surely strengthened when the work of such as Arthur Eddington and Albert Einstein is considered. [...] However, thanks to people like Eddington, Einstein and (more recently) Wheeler, work in the areas of general relativity did continue and it should be noted that much of the work on general relativity has been via laboratory experiments, so hard experimental evidence is available to support any claims made."

Put this another way: remove all of Alfvén's work; what's left, of plasma cosmology?

Do you honestly think that Alfvén's role in Plasma Cosmology is any less important than Newton's in classical physics?!?!?

You stated earlier that Dunning-Davies' paper implies that Alfvén didn't do any work on Plasma Cosmology, despite that Alfvén's work is mentioned as an important contribution to it and also an inspiration to the Electric Universe ideas. Than you claim that I think that Alfvén's contribution to Plasma Cosmology is unimportant based on your interpretation..

Alfvén did contribute a lot to the Plasma Cosmology. He also attributed a considerate portion of his work to the notions and findings of Kristian Birkeland. Some of his Plasma Cosmology work was backed up in papers by Carl-Gunne Fälthammar. Several Plasma Cosmology aspects and models were developed further by Anthony Peratt, with an additional reference to an important mechanism described by Göran Marklund (Marklund convection). Some Plasma Cosmology work has also been done by Eric Lerner. Recent research underlines Alfvén's principles in relation to electricity in space.

Dunning-Davis' paper gives an introduction about Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe , and which notions they describe and are based on, but it is clearly not meant to be an historical step-by-step elaboration. He also states both terms are being used interchangably, yet pointing to the differences.

Again, thank you for your honesty.

Myself, I find it shocking to see such a bald defense of historical revisionism as blatant and repugnant as any in the annuls of Stalin's Soviet Union.

But Dunning-Davies is the editor of this Special Issue, and, given his many years in an academic position at a university, he could be expected to at least acknowledge the vast body of published work in the field of plasma astrophysics.

Plasma Astrophysics, albeit having many interesting projects, hasn't been engaging in plasma cosmology specific work as far as I know. Hence, that field in its entirety can't be credited for plasma cosmology. That would rather be attributed to the ones I mentioned above (as well as mentioned in Dunning-Davis' and Smith's papers).

George Orwell would have been happy to use this kind of crazy double-think in his novel 1984.

Did you actually read the Smith paper? The Ransom one? The Scott one? The Thornhill one?

Here are some of the headings in Smith's: Redshift = Recessional Velocity; Black Holes, Dark Matter, Craters and Planetary Scars, Thermonuclear Theory of Stars.

Some topics in Scott's: "NASA's five THEMIS spacecraft have discovered a breach in Earth's magnetic field", "Eugene N. Parker [7] correctly calls coronal loops ‘bulges’ in the Sun’s magnetic field", "The presence of sub-surface electric currents on the Sun is not just mere speculation."

And Thornhill's: "Concerning M87, 2C273, and M49, one of several aligned configurations discussed in that first paper, Arp later wrote", "Geologists, paleontologists and astronomers are on notice because they cling to dating systems that take for granted a relatively undisturbed Earth, following its present orbit for aeons", "The famous Einstein equation, E = mc², is an example where books and encyclopedias slip unnoticed into referring to mass ‘m’ not as a phenomenon of matter but as matter itself".

Every single one of these is a research topic, or a broad set of topics, in fields other than cosmology. If plasma cosmology can encompass all these, then all the research on these topics is relevant.

But I guess you may be right in one respect: plasma cosmology/EU is not the least "a set of several theories and coherent physical principles that attempts to describe and understand the Universe"; rather it's a complete dog's breakfast of religion, lies, cynical mis-representation, historical revisionism, and grotesque misunderstanding of plasma physics.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

BTW, what do you mean regarding Thornhill's lack of attribution in his paper? There was 76 specific references within the paper, and images seem to be properly described and credited.

Here are some examples, pretty much at random* (Figure and its label first):

Fig. (2). "Plasma galaxy formation". Accompanying text: "The scandalous truth is that there is a model of spiral galaxy formation (Fig. 2) that has long been demonstrated by laboratory experiment and ‘particle in cell’ (PIC) simulations on a supercomputer" - no credit, reference or attribution (Thornhill did not do that work)

Fig. (5). "Electromagnetic pinch experiment vs. planetary nebula and supernova." Accompanying text: "The conductive metal can in Fig. (5) (left) was pinched and inductively heated by a strong poloidal magnetic field. The conductive cylinder of Birkeland filaments surrounding a star behave in the same way (center). And supernova 1987A (right) shows the bright ‘beads’ where the cylinder of Birkeland filaments strike the stellar equatorial current sheet to form the ring of bright beads, and the fainter coaxial rings where polar Alfvén double layers occur in a cylindrical circuit." - no credits, references or attributions (Thornhill did not make the telescope observations of either astronomical object (and he doesn't even identify the center image!))

Fig. (8). "Birkeland (top left) and his Terrella. Inset (left) discharges to a magnetized sphere from an equatorial plasma toroid, (center) solar equatorial plasma toroid in UV, (right) polar view." Accompanying text: "He managed to reproduce sunspot behavior in his famous Terrella experiments where he applied external electrical power to a magnetized globe suspended in a near vacuum (Fig. 8)" - there is no credits, references or attribution for either the center or the right insert (Thornhill did not develop the models on which they are based, nor did he make the observations from which the models were derived).

Fig. (13). "Voltage-current curve of a DC discharge" Accompanying text: "Fig. (13) shows the voltage-current curve of a DC glow discharge in low-pressure gas. Three main regions can be distinguished from each other, dark discharge, glow discharge and arc discharge." - no credit, reference or attribution (Thornhill did not do the research that underlies the chart/plot/graph)

Does that answer your question?

* this is NOT an attempt to provide a comprehensive list of unattributed Figures in Thornhill's paper

 

[Cuddles]

Despite what some people appear to believe, the terms "electric universe" and "plasma cosmology" do not magically give you free reign to post whatever the hell you like with no regard for the topic. Once again, if you want to have a general discussion of these topics, go and do it in one of the many threads that already exist for that.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[DeiRenDopa]

He does? And on which page of Dunning-Davies paper may this be found? In which paragraph?

That was from the unpublished paper you quoted as a comparison between Smith's mention of redshift. I described that there wasn't a contradiction between the two as you claimed. (The labeling of metric expansion of space as a "non-physical medium behaviour" was my words). Your "no review at all" hypothesis was misguided.

Thanks for the clarification.

That "unpublished paper" is the Wikipedia entry which R. Gray and J. Dunning-Davies plagiarized and tried to post on arXiv, only to have it withdrawn by the arXiv admin.

It is not the OAJ Special Issue editorial that has Dunning-Davies' name on it.

Dunning-Davies does not refer to the plagiarized document, nor cite it, in his OAJ paper.

Back to the Smith paper:

The distance to galaxies, quasars and such has traditionally been defined by Doppler redshift theory.

I'm sure others can come up with better, pithier examples of what this is like, but here's my weak attempt:

The chemical equilibrium concentrations and reaction rates have traditionally been defined by phlogiston theory. (not very good; turns up the contrast too high)

The central design principles of photo-electric multiplier tubes have traditionally been defined by classical electromagnetism theory.

But it's good to see that you've tried to defend Smith's ignorance, and Dunning-Davies' laziness (or incompetence), by appealing to historical revisionism.

Perhaps this Special Issue was peer-reviewed after all? Reviewed by fellow EU cult members, that is. In the EU worldview, it is perfectly acceptable to plagiarize, to re-write history, to completely mis-represent the work of others, to ... Perhaps what we have, in this Special Issue, is a superbly good example of the application of EU academic and intellectual standards?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

which pretends to be citing Reference 5 for support, although Reference 5 in fact says the exact opposite (i.e., that we DO see the silhouettes, exactly as predicted?)

(bold added)

[nitpick]
What Lieu et al. (2006) reported, in the paper that was published, in ApJ, was more nuanced than that. For example, they reported that, for the co-added signal (from 31 clusters) "the observed SZE only accounts for about 1/4 of the expected decrement"; for some of the 31 clusters, there seemed to be no (SZE) decrement at all; and that the statistical significance of their main result was weak (e.g. "The statistical significance of an overall W-band SZE detection is < 3 σ, when the expected effect is far larger").

Smith may have been referring to one of the earlier, unpublished (and not peer-reviewed) arXiv drafts.
[/nitpick]

The more important failure - IMHO - in the peer-review process was to have allowed Smith to cite this paper, and fail to cite any of the later ones on the same topic.

Lieu et al. did find something quite interesting (i.e. the SZE, as observed with WMAP-like 'telescopes', is weaker than the then-popular models would predict). For example, the WMAP team itself published a paper on this (Komatsu et al. (2011)), using a much larger dataset, and has this to say: "We report significant detections of the SZ effect at the locations of known clusters of galaxies. The measured SZ signal agrees well with the expected signal from the X-ray data. However, it is a factor of 0.5 to 0.7 times the predictions from "universal profile" of Arnaud et al., analytical models, and hydrodynamical simulations. We find, for the first time in the SZ effect, a significant difference between the cooling-flow and non-cooling-flow clusters (or relaxed and non-relaxed clusters), which can explain some of the discrepancy." (to take just one example)

 

[Siggy_G]

I think you have a very strange idea about the nature of science (well, at least astrophysics, astronomy, etc). Can you elaborate please?

This was mainly related to new approaches within astrophysics/cosmology, that differs from the standard models. If the standard model was so close to confirmed as many around here seems to believe, we would mainly see just more detailing of existing theories. No one would question or spend considerable effort into researching different interpretations of, say, observed redshift or magnetic fields. Yet, there are numerous researchers devoting much time and effort into investigating a non-expanding universe, infinite universe, plasma processes affecting photons and microwave radiation, electric currents' relation to magnetic fields, and so on.

What is it that you think drives research in astrophysics? Please be as clear, and specific, as you can.

That would be the further collection of data, find more accurate descriptions to models (consensus only?) and ultimately get a better understanding of the universe. However, "In a scientific field, it is dangerous to rely only one concept"*. I've read plenty of papers where e.g. solar physicists honestly point to shortcomings in the standard solar model (which needs further research but apparently not a complete revision of the model) or astrophysisists underlining galactic magnetic fields as a yet unsolved cosmological problem (which needs further research but apparently not a complete revision of the model). However, new data tend to challenge and sometimes contradict standard notions, such as star formation, planet formation, cometary behaviour, planet-moon current systems, evolutionary state of high redshift galaxies, "age" of the universe etc.

* The choice of the concept of magnetic field lines or of electric current lines (first page, last section)

PS: my delayed replies is due to fluctating spare time these days!

 

[Siggy_G]

Put this another way: remove all of Alfvén's work; what's left, of plasma cosmology?

Why do you even make this statement, when none of the papers have ever stated neither directly nor indirectly that Alfvén didn't do any work on plasma cosmology? Or are you making an example of contemporary revisionism?

Again, thank you for your honesty.

Myself, I find it shocking to see such a bald defense of historical revisionism as blatant and repugnant as any in the annuls of Stalin's Soviet Union.

(...) rather [plasma cosmology/EU is] a complete dog's breakfast of religion, lies, cynical mis-representation, historical revisionism, and grotesque misunderstanding of plasma physics.

Well, thanks for your honesty. I believe this and a couple of other descriptions confirm a fairly severe dislike towards EU, likely regardless of any paper's content, which I refered to in an earlier post. (I don't see why you refuted that). Not that it's uncommon, but it displays more of an underlying motif than merely the academic concern you portray. However, I'll look at the sections you've critized.