https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4l ... e=emb_logo
Aside from the typical unethical debate tactics of using inflammatory terms like "pseudoscience", "delusions", "paranoia", "cult", "lies", etc, and comparisons of EU/PC theory to flat earth beliefs and astrology, there are a number of complete misrepresentations and several ironic statements in Professor Dave's new video that warrant comment. It's worth spending a few moments debunking some of his "debunking".
After a series of inflammatory and unethical comparisons, Dave begins his presentation by discussing gravity as it manifests itself on Earth, and implying that EU/PC theory is intrinsically incompatible with GR theory, or any other theory of gravity, which is of course complete nonsense. While it is undeniably true that many scientists, including some within the EU/PC community would like to pursue and discuss a "theory of everything" which ties all of the known forces of nature together, it's not true that EU/PC theory is inherently incompatible with general relativity. Dave essentially tries to argue that any success of GR theory automatically "debunks" EU/PC theory, and automatically validates the LCDM model, which of course is utter nonsense. EU/PC theory is not threatened or undermined by the success of general relativity, or Newtonian models of gravity. Furthermore, the LCDM cosmology model is not automatically validated by the success that general relativity theory. GR is a general theory about "gravity", whereas the LCDM model is a *cosmology* model that includes other things like dark energy, dark matter, galaxy evolution predictions, etc.
It should be noted that gravity alone *cannot* and does not explain all events in space. The major difference between the LCDM model and the EU/PC model is that while the EU/PC model adds ordinary electromagnetism to the mix in order to explain events in space, whereas the LCDM model tries to fix it's shortcomings with metaphysical "pseudoscience" like "dark energy" and "dark matter', inflation and such to GR to try to explain the universe. So really, despite Dave's allegations, it's not a matter of whether or not gravity *alone* can explain the universe. We know for a fact that gravity alone cannot and does not explain it all, so either we must choose to add electromagnetism or we can choose to add metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to explain the universe. Either way, gravity alone won't suffice. Even the mainstream attempts to explain some events in space based on *magnetism*, albeit without addressing the electric field aspects of plasma, so even the mainstream does recognize that gravity alone cannot and does not explain all high energy events in space and acknowledges that EM fields play a role in the physical processes in space.
The first magic trick that Dave uses is to try to undermine EU theory by suggesting that any success of GR automatically "debunks" EU theory. That's patently false. I could just as rightly suggest that since EU theory *includes* gravity, any success of GR theory automatically "debunks" the LCMD model or any other cosmology model. That's simply a fallacious, misleading, and vacuous argument.
Dave's second cheap parlor trick involves his citations of Thunderbolts videos and his personal fixation on just one of the three primary solar models which have been described and discussed by EU proponents over the past century. Specifically Dave compares the mainstream solar model to Juergen's externally powered anode model. He then falsely asserts that Juergen's solar model precludes gravity from playing any role in solar formation (which is certainly not true) and he irrationally states that an anode solar model precludes the possibility of solar fusion. Strike two. He also asserts, that an externally driven solar model somehow requires GR theory to be false, all of which demonstrates Dave's gross ignorance of the entire topic and his professional incompetence. Juergen's solar model does not require any of those assumptions to be true. Three strikes on Dave with respect to his supposed 'debunk" of EU/PC solar theory.
Oddly enough Dave actually uses Newton's description of gravity to build a case for gravity playing a role in our solar system, which nobody disputes in the first place. At some point Dave erroneously claims that the EU/PC community insists that our understanding of gravity is 'wrong' as though EU/PC theory somehow precludes the existence of gravity entirely, presumably even Newtonian descriptions of gravity. It's not even a valid argument of course, but it doesn't stop Dave from trying to ride that dead horse anyway. Dave then asserts that EU/PC theory requires that gravity is 'wrong' and if gravity is wrong then every single aspect of solar system dynamics should be vastly different. He says something to the effect if gravity is wrong, how do we have satellites. Essentially he creates his own strawman argument by first erroneously claiming that EU/PC rejects all types of inclusions of various models of gravity. Then he uses Newtonian definitions of gravity to describe gravity on Earth. He then pulls a blatant bait and switch routine to suggesting that EU/PC rejects *all* definitions of gravity! Sheesh. What a wild and irrational rollercoaster ride. While it may be the case that some EU/PC proponents reject GR theory as being the "best" explanation of gravity, virtually nobody within the EU/PC community tries to claim that gravity in any form doesn't exist, or that it plays *no* role in events in space. We simply reject the belief that gravity *alone* can explain all events in space. There's a big and rather unsubtle distinction between what Dave is trying claim and what EU/PC models are actually based upon. We simply *add* EM influences to gravity, whereas the LCDM models adds metaphysical components like dark energy and dark matter to explain the same otherwise unexplained observations.
Dave then asserts that we understand gravity quite well, and he asserts that we understand EM fields well, and therefore it's inconceivable that we don't understand them well enough to know how they're related. This attitude essentially flies in the face of Einstein's lifelong attempt to tie all the forces of nature together under a single 'theory of everything'. In fact he essentially tries to invalidate that entire endeavor which has been attempted by *many* scientists throughout the modern history of physics. Essentially he blames the EU/PC community for the "sin" of believing that there may be a way to tie them all together. It's not much of a valid scientific argument, but he tries to make that assertion none the less. He falsely asserts that since a *few* people prefer to support a 'theory of everything" sort of definition of gravity that the *entire* EU community automatically rejects all definitions of gravity and we offer "nothing" to replace it with. Even that assertion is untrue because attempts have been made over the years, not *just* be EU/PC proponents, to replace GR theory with a QM description of gravity. One might argue that none of them works 'as well' as GR theory, but it's irrational to claim no other models have been offered for consideration. I personally choose to continue to support GR theory as the "best" explanation of gravity, but I still haven't given up all hope of eventually replacing GR theory with a QM oriented "theory of everything", and many other scientists share that same sentiment.
Eventually Dave acknowledges the fact that most of use embrace *some* definition of gravity, but then he asserts yet another strawman argument. He claims that if gravity alone isn't sufficient to explain all events in space, why does it work here on Earth at all, and shouldn't we see evidence that it's wrong here on Earth. This is a bizarre argument since in fact we *can* add EM field influences to various events on Earth and thereby verify that gravity alone cannot and does not explain all possible events here on Earth. A good example of the influence of EM fields on Earth would be to use a magnet to pick up a paperclip, and one small magnetic can overcome all the gravitational forces of the entire planet. Another example would be the suspension of a magnetic above a superconductor. Again it's very easy to demonstrate The EM forces can and do tend to *also* have an effect on objects on our planet. That isn't to say that gravity cannot explain *some* events and *some* scenarios just fine, but it clearly demonstrates that EM field influences can and do have tangible effects on experiments here on Earth, *unlike* the mainstream's "dark energy" claims for instance. One could easily turn his argument right around and ask Dave to explain why "dark energy" somehow manages to overcome all the gravitational attraction of an entire universe, yet it's impotent in terms of showing any influences here on Earth in any actual experiment. In short this entire argument is a huge red herring, and rather ironic to boot.
Dave then irrationally asserts that we should be able to make cars float, or step inside a Faraday cage and levitate, and a list of claims that EU/PC proponents have never suggested in the first place! It's another strawman argument of his own design. Meanwhile Dave cannot and does not list a single source of "dark energy" or offer us any possible way to even demonstrate here on Earth in a controlled experiment that dark energy is even a real force of nature! At least we *can* make charged particles react differently in a gravitational field here on Earth in the presence of electromagnetic fields. That's *way* better than Dave can do with his beloved dark energy mythology.
Dave then asks a series of irrelevant questions about "why" we aren't for instance torn to shreds inside of an MRI machine, or why compasses don't point toward the human body, and a whole host of irrational questions which are based on his own bizarre and misplaced ideas about how things "might" work with some mythical EM "theory of everything" definition of gravity, none of which are even relevant to most people's concepts of gravity in the first place. In short, it's nothing but a ridiculous strawman argument which *assumes* that gravity must be caused by EM fields alone in some highly oversimplified manner. It's a bizarre argument to say the least.
What's even weirder still however is that Dave then asserts that gravity in space is the same gravity we experience here on Earth so we should be dubious about even trying to suggest that gravity *alone* isn't sufficient to explain *all* events in space, in spite of the fact that his own beloved LCMD model also asserts other cosmological influences like dark energy and dark matter to explain *some* events in space too. Talk about blatant hypocrisy. He essentially blames EU proponents to even suggest that EM influence *also* play a role in space, while giving his beloved dark energy nonsense a free pass!
One of the most irrational arguments put forth by Dave is his assertion that EM field influences have *no* influence whatsoever on galaxy or planetary formation *in spite* of the fact that NASA has actually demonstrated that they absolutely *do* play a role in the early "clumping" of dust particles in space via static electricity. Dave essentially asserts that that gravity alone explains all clumping of all types of matter in all environments without any need whatsoever for EM field influences to be considered. This is patently false since Don Pettit showed that in experiments on the ISS that the "clumping' of small particles in space is typically caused by EM attraction and static electric influences. At *some* point in the "clumping" process it may be the case that gravity plays a more dominant role, but it's utterly irrational to attempt to exclude EM influences in space when talking about how particles first start to come together. Dave is just dead wrong on that issue and Don Pettit's experiments have demonstrated the effect of the EM field on clumping processes in space and planetary formation. There are also numerous newer experiments performed by the Russians which show that EM fields have *dramatic* effects on particle movements in a vacuum and which demonstrate that plasma can even act a bit like "lattice' type crystals which help to evenly space out plasma in a vacuum.
Dave essentially tries to suggest that one must *assume* that gravity *or* EM field influences must explain all clumping processes in space, when it fact it's not actually an "either/or' question in the first place. Essentially he engages in an oversimplification fallacy when it comes to structured formations in space. This *in spite* of the fact that the mainstream has to rely upon exotic forms of matter to explain galaxy rotation patterns, when those same rotation patterns can also be explained by augmenting gravity with EM field influences as Don Scott's Birkeland model has demonstrated. Scott's model even explain counter rotation patterns observed in some galaxies, where the 'dark matter' model does not.
What is most *unprofessional* about Dave's presentation however is that he routinely falsely asserts that EU/PC models do not offer any alternatives to the mainstream galaxy formation models, when in fact both Don Scott and Anthony Peratt have put forth mathematical models of these same formation events, and in Peratt's case *tested them with computer software* no less. Dave keeps falsely and ignorantly asserting that no mathematical alternatives even exist! That's simply not true and his continued misrepresentations of that fact are highly unprofessional and highly erroneous.
Dave then goes back to solar theory, and again falsely asserts that gravity has *no* influence on suns in the EU/PC model when in fact no one other than Dave has made such an assertion. He also simply ignores all solar models proposed by EU/PC proponents *other than* Juergen's anode model, but he doesn't even describe that model correctly since it does not preclude gravity from playing a role in the formation of stars as he erroneously claims. He also falsely asserts that Juergen's solar model precludes *all* types of fusion processes when in fact both Thornhill and Scott have extensively written about fusion near the solar surface. Even *if* it's true that stars are 'powered' by fusion, no EU/PC solar model precludes fusion from occurring in the sun in the first place. It simply isn't driven by gravity *alone* in Juergen's model, whereas it could be the case in both Alfven's homopolar generator model, and in Birkeland's cathode model, yet neither of the other two solar models is even mentioned by Dave. The really irrational part of Dave's argument is that he claims we 'know' how to generate fusion here on Earth by citing an example that is *not* based on gravitational compression in the first place. In short he shoots his entire argument in the foot, and it begins by falsely claiming that Jeurgen's anode solar model precludes the existence of fusion which is *not* caused by gravitational compression. No one *inside* the EU/PC community has ever precluded fusion from powering (at least partially powering) the sun.
Dave then delves into solar theory as it works in mainstream models and asserts that EU/PC theory offers nothing to replace it. This is simply not true in at *least* two of the three main EU/PC solar models to start with, and even in Juergen's anode model there are aspects of solar physics (like coronal heating) which *are* explained in EU/PC theory but which are *not* explained by the standard solar model. In short his entire set of arguments related to solar physics are based on the false *assumption* that there is only *one* solar model associated with EU/PC theory, and one model to choose from, when in fact there are *at least* three different and distinct solar models to choose from, two of which include internal fusion, and one which also requires some type of fusion and a transmutation of elements.
Probably the most *unprofessional* misrepresentation that Dave makes about EU/PC theory is when he consistently asserts that: "Electric universe does not publish any models and does not make any quantitative predictions". Apparently we have to assume that poor Dave is simply ignorant of all of the many published works and models by Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Scott and many others who have in fact published models complete with quantitative predictions. Peratt even went so far as to use computer models to test his various predictions. It's therefore hard to understand how and why Dave can remain so completely ignorant of the entire quantitative predictive elements of EU theory spanning more than a full century at this point. Is "Professor" Dave Games simply *that* professionally incompetent as to never bother to educate himself, or is he being willfully deceptive when he makes such ridiculously false claims? This seems to be a very important question to ask of self professed EU/PC debunkers. Their claims are almost always based on either pure ignorance, or willful deception, but either way it's highly unprofessional behavior of a so called "professional astronomers" to make such false accusations. Either Professor Dave is professionally incompetent or he is intentionally deceptive, but either way it's highly unprofessional behavior.
It's very time consuming to attempt to "debunk" a 26 minute video full of Gish-gallop galore and blatant misrepresentation, but this critique covers about 2/3rd of Dave's video. I'll probably tackle the last 1/3rd of the video later today, but suffice to say that Dave's 'debunk' of EU/PC theory is based on either willful ignorance, or outright deceit, but either way it doesn't bode well for Dave. Shame on Dave.
