Debunking Dave

[formerlycbragz]

frikn dave...gee swept...perfesser short n curley...

[Michael Mozina]

Since Dave has refused to respond to my challenge, every day for the past three days I've posted my challenge to Dave's "Debunking EU" video page, and today he did what all cowards do, he banned me and removed all of my responses from his video page. Typical.

EU haters simply cannot handle an honest scientific debate, nor can they admit to being wrong, so they do what all good cowards do, they run like frightened little children from any sort of honest response or honest challenge to their click bait BS. Dave is actually worse than most of them because Dave is actually profiting from his own intentional misinformation. That's about as unprofessional and unethical as it gets. "Professor" Dave is a con man and a total fraud. He's not even a active "professor" to begin with. Even that phony boloney title that he gave himself is just more false information and it's all a part of his con job. I think his only "job" is generating Youtube revenue by posting false click bait videos and stirring up controversy. What a lying, greedy, unethical putz. Sheesh.

[EtherQuestions]

I think the folks at Thunderbolts should put together an actual video rebuttal of his "debunk". It's hard to rebut all of the errors that he made in a text post, and it doesn't have the same visual effect.

This needs to be done, it is important!

Dave is purposefully misrepresenting the EU Theory, and spreading false assumptions about it and the ThunderboltsProject. He should be called out and responded to in a clear and concise way (without getting too messy/involved).

Take his video, play back the parts where he is blatantly misrepresenting Electric Universe theory, and then each response debunking his unethical misrepresentation put in on the YouTube Channel.

Exactly as Michael Mozina has perfectly done here.

[JP Michael]

I think the folks at Thunderbolts should put together an actual video rebuttal of his "debunk". It's hard to rebut all of the errors that he made in a text post, and it doesn't have the same visual effect.

And I think you should be the guest presenter!!! Send an email to Ben and get an interview done, mate!

All Michael would have to do is read out his rebuttal in this thread!

[longcircuit]

I watched Professor Dave's video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4l ... gs=pl%2Cwn) on debunking the EU just before I found this thread. My two cents: even if Dave isn't a true professor, and is using the title with tongue in cheek, what he says about the physical sciences in general, and the EU in particular, either is true or it isn't. And either we can answer his criticisms or we can't.

To be clear: I'm not carrying water for Dave. Given his rapid resort to abuse, he comes across as a punk. This is common to critics of the EU. But we do ourselves no favor to return the (dis)compliment.

[Michael Mozina]

I watched Professor Dave's video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4l ... gs=pl%2Cwn) on debunking the EU just before I found this thread. My two cents: even if Dave isn't a true professor, and is using the title with tongue in cheek, what he says about the physical sciences in general, and the EU in particular, either is true or it isn't. And either we can answer his criticisms or we can't.

To be clear: I'm not carrying water for Dave. Given his rapid resort to abuse, he comes across as a punk. This is common to critics of the EU. But we do ourselves no favor to return the (dis)compliment.

https://www.reddit.com/r/plasmacosmolog ... ave_games/

We certainly can answer his criticisms, but starting with the fact that his first criticism was utter nonsense. No EU/PC proponent denies the *role* of gravity, even if they happen to support a QM oriented "theory of everything". Dave skipped about a century's worth of qualitative and quantitative science that has been done on EU/PC theory.

[EtherQuestions]

I watched Professor Dave's video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4l ... gs=pl%2Cwn) on debunking the EU just before I found this thread. My two cents: even if Dave isn't a true professor, and is using the title with tongue in cheek, what he says about the physical sciences in general, and the EU in particular, either is true or it isn't. And either we can answer his criticisms or we can't.

To be clear: I'm not carrying water for Dave. Given his rapid resort to abuse, he comes across as a punk. This is common to critics of the EU. But we do ourselves no favor to return the (dis)compliment.

We already have answered the critiques, most are outright lies and misrepresentation of what EU/PC actually is anyway, (Mozina also posted this above ).

The return of discourtesy to Dave is only a result of the fact:

1. He deletes comments and bans people debunking his false claims (in general no insults are being used either by EU posters, just honest rebuttal being censored by him).
2. Refuses to debate anybody, including prominent EU/PC figures.
3. Continues to spread disinformation about EU/PC theory.

If it was JUST about his resort to abusive language there would be a lot more threads like this, because as you point out "This is common to critics of the EU." . And the reaction prompted here isn't strictly about that.

[Michael Mozina]

I watched Professor Dave's video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4l ... gs=pl%2Cwn) on debunking the EU just before I found this thread. My two cents: even if Dave isn't a true professor, and is using the title with tongue in cheek, what he says about the physical sciences in general, and the EU in particular, either is true or it isn't. And either we can answer his criticisms or we can't.

To be clear: I'm not carrying water for Dave. Given his rapid resort to abuse, he comes across as a punk. This is common to critics of the EU. But we do ourselves no favor to return the (dis)compliment.

We already have answered the critiques, most are outright lies and misrepresentation of what EU/PC actually is anyway, (Mozina also posted this above ).

The return of discourtesy to Dave is only a result of the fact:

1. He deletes comments and bans people debunking his false claims (in general no insults are being used either by EU posters, just honest rebuttal being censored by him).
2. Refuses to debate anybody, including prominent EU/PC figures.
3. Continues to spread disinformation about EU/PC theory.

If it was JUST about his resort to abusive language there would be a lot more threads like this, because as you point out "This is common to critics of the EU." . And the reaction prompted here isn't strictly about that.

I think longcircuit is correct however that in the end either Dave is scientifically correct or he's incorrect and our time is better spent on confronting the disinformation Gish-Gallop rather than the individual. Sure, Dave did unethical things, but that doesn't mean we have to follow suit.

The problem with "disinformation" is that one spends time trying to put out a dozen ignorant fires only because a single individual failed to do their homework and then tries to pass himself off as an "expert" on the topic of EU/PC theory, and claiming to "debunk" it based on irrational premises.

Dave's whole bogus spiel about EU theory not including gravity was a great example. Apparently the individual in question simply watched a YouTube video by Wal Thornhill and then he built a completely strawman model to debunk from that video. Contrary to what Dave suggested, Wal doesn't deny the role of gravity, he simply prefers to explain gravity using a "theory of everything" sort of model that ties all the known forces to nature together. It's akin to someone preferring to use a QM oriented 'theory of everything' model to describe gravity.

That's the problem when one is willfully ignorant to nearly a century's worth of research on electric universe and plasma cosmology.

It's one thing however for an "anonymous amateur" to misrepresent the EU/PC model. You have to kinda expect that actually. It's another thing entirely however when someone is trying to pass themselves off as a self professed "scientific expert" on the topic using their real name, and they claim to "debunk" EU theory. I've only seen that done about a handful of times now, including Dave. It is 'fair' to note that Dave is not currently an astronomer or a science professor in a real university, and his revenue comes from Youtube click bait videos. I think the facts about Dave's scientific background (or lack thereof) explains some of the hostility and behaviors we've seen from Dave.

I've seen self described 'experts' try to "debunk"/debate EU/PC models several times over the years, first with Tim Thompson, again with Tom Bridgman, in a hit piece article by Sara Scholls(?) (who was a science 'writer' I believe), Brian Koberlein, and most recently with Dave Farina.

I'd say that in terms of the scientific "effort" that went into the process, it roughly follows that order in terms how professional they were in their attempt to poke holes in EU/PC model(s) over the years.

In the case of Tim Thompson, I think that Tim made a very honest scientific attempt to back up his criticisms of Juergens' anode solar model based on scientific evidence like solar wind composition and particle flow movements recorded by satellites. Not all of his criticisms were fair of course, but I think Tim did make an honest attempt to cite numerous references and make a real scientific argument. His criticisms were quite limited however and directed mostly at Don Scott's description of an anode solar model.

In Tom's case, if I'm being totally honest, he actually taught me something with respect to how I was perceiving cosmic rays from space. The argument Tom made about a cathode sun attracting positive ions is in fact true. I was originally miffed at Tom because Tom had grossly "oversimplified" the particle flow diagram and the solar wind predictions of Birkeland's cathode model. Birkeland's cathode model predicts the sun to emit both electrons and positively charged ions. Tom's oversimplified particle flow diagram however clued me into another important element of the overall electrical current process that I'd been overlooking. Tom essentially reminded me that cosmic rays are overwhelming positively charged particles traveling at close to the speed of light which constantly flow into the solar atmosphere. They do in fact bring positively charged particles and positive current into the solar atmosphere.

A lot of Tom's criticisms at the anode solar model were not entirely fair because the sun need not be completely heated and powered entirely from external electrical current. Scott and Thornhill have made it clear that they expect fusion to occur in the solar atmosphere which varies with the sunspot cycle. Most of Tom's mathematical estimates were based on highly oversimplified models, but at least Tom tried to make a real mathematical arguments based on some semblance of logic. Tom oversimplified his arguments, but overall I'd give Tom "some" amount of credit for looking for problems in particle flow patterns, though Tom didn't seem to understand Birkeland's actual solar wind predictions very well, if at all.

The last three public attempts I would categorize as intentional "misinformation", with an dishonest attempt to personally smear Wal Thornill. I find both of those behaviors to be unethical.

I guess since Wal has been publicly promoting the electric universe concept for decades, he seems to draw and solicit a lot of public flack, but most of it has been based on willful scientific misrepresentations of the facts, not even based on scientific arguments that are based on Wal's actual beliefs. For instance, Koberlein tried to willfully misrepresent Wal's beliefs about solar physics when he said that electric universe solar theories (plural) predict the sun emits "no neutrinos". The reality is that Wal wrote about fusion processes occurring in the upper atmosphere which vary with the sunspot cycle. Koberlein claimed to be debunking Wal's model, but he willfully misrepresented what Wal actually wrote.

Dave tried to erroneously claim that electric universe theory (which he later associates with Wal Thornhill), denies the existence of gravity. That's not what Wal believes either. Both of those arguments are based on willful distortions of Wal's own personal beliefs, all wrapped up in the guise of a "scientific debunking" of EU/PC theory. Apparently they either have a serious comprehension problem, or they have a problem with honesty, one or the other.

What is most unethical about these sorts of arguments is the fact that they are willfully wrong, and the individuals refuse to correct their public errors. No EU/PC solar model predicts that the sun emits "no neutrinos". That is willful "misinformation" perpetrated by so called "professionals". No EU/PC model denies the role of gravity either, it *adds* the EM forces to the cosmological processes, with a heavy emphasis on the electric field. Now of course Dave and Sara aren't professional astronomers like Tim, or Tom, or even Koberlein. They simply profited from willful misrepresentation of the historic scientific facts.

I think the Tim Thompson type of "skeptic" is actually good for our community because it forces us to defend our views based on real scientific evidence and scientific arguments. The rest of the public "EU skeptics" fall somewhere into the category between "misguided crusading" (Bridgman), and "outright misrepresentation of the historical facts (Koberlein, Farina).

[Michael Mozina]

There's one other point that I'd like to make about Tim Thompson. I had the wonderful pleasure of openly debating Tim Thompson on JREF (now ISF) many years ago. While we often butted heads, I admire Tim, and in terms of science and astronomy, Tim taught me a lot. Tim always cited his scientific references. That was really great in terms of engaging in scientific arguments, and I am forever grateful for our discussions. I think by the time I met Tim he had already been publicly butting heads with Dr. Scott for several years. Tim had developed a huge chip on his shoulder towards *all* concepts related to EU/PC theory, not just a single anode solar model which I didn't even personally prefer in the first place. Sometimes I think Tim didn't know quite what to make of me since I didn't fit a lot of his preconceived ideas in terms of solar physics.

With the exception of Tim, most of the arguments directed against EU models have been wildly inaccurate to start with. It's logically and scientifically impossible to publicly defend a scientifically inaccurate statement. Since no EU model predicts the sun to emit "no neutrinos", those kinds of statements are not scientifically or logically defensible. Likewise, since no EU/PC model denies the role of gravity, it's impossible to defend that kind of irrational nonsense. That's why Dave won't ever show up here (or the Plasma Cosmology forum on Reddit) and have an honest scientific debate with us. That's also why Sara never came back to discuss her "hit piece" with us either.

[Zyxzevn]

About discussions with sceptics. There are many problems.

1. Most of them get stuck into logical fallacies. Or fall back to them when you counter an argument.
I see this in almost every normal discussion.

2. They have missed the obvious problems in their own science.
The big bang is magical thinking.
And the Magnetic reconnection model is pure garbage.
This has even entered the peer-reviewed field, and has dug a place in there.
If they can not even see their own problems, how can they be discussed?
Usually they fall back to 1: logical fallacies to hide the problems.
It is the problem of the emperor with "new" clothes.

3. I don't think most people are able to understand that
alternative models might work as well. Or even work better. Hundreds of them.
It requires some intelligence, but mainly the ability to follow different paths of thinking.
People that program a lot, seem to be better trained at this, because it is the
only way to find errors in your program.
In science the education is often limiting the paths.
Because science education requires that.
So how more educated and specialized the person is,
the harder it is for this person to follow other paths of thinking.

4. And how belief structures have kept us in certain models, because
"the maths looked nice".
Most scientists have stated that, but that is actually magical thinking.
Reality is not nice, but a chaotic mess, which we order via limited measurements,
via many layers of simplifications, until we find the simplest model possible.
There are many beliefs that have dominated science, and especially astronomy.
The big bang is straight from a creation theory and was well fitted for
many scientists that were very religious at that time.

So when discussing with sceptics, we are discussing with their
secret mathematical religion,
their limited paths of thinking,
the garbage in peer-reviewed science,
and the endless logical fallacies.
And finally I don't think that I am able to change anyone's mind.
That is only what someone can do for himself.

Instead I just post an interesting article, and maybe people
will pick it up and start opening their minds.

[crawler]

Everyone should be skeptical about everything all the time.

[Michael Mozina]

4. And how belief structures have kept us in certain models, because
"the maths looked nice".
Most scientists have stated that, but that is actually magical thinking.
Reality is not nice, but a chaotic mess, which we order via limited measurements,
via many layers of simplifications, until we find the simplest model possible.
There are many beliefs that have dominated science, and especially astronomy.
The big bang is straight from a creation theory and was well fitted for
many scientists that were very religious at that time.

This issue has tormented astronomy since the dawn of time. In spite of the fact that Aristarchus of Samos correctly predicted a heliocentric solar system model by 300BC, astronomers remained enthralled with the Ptolemaic mathematical models for another 18 centuries, and they remained blinded by religious implications. Eventually their "nice" looking math gave way to other nicer looking math, but even as late as 1400AD, there were still significant religious objections to embracing heliocentric models of space.

The math related to "dark" stuff and MRx will eventually give way to mathematical models related to EM fields and circuit theory, but even still, there are religious implication to abandoning belief in a "creation" (of all matter) type of an event.

The "average Joe" isn't all that interested in astronomy to start with, and for them it's simply easier for them to believe that astronomers know what they're talking about and the fact it jives with their religious beliefs is just a bonus. The average "professional" LCDM proponent typically specializes in some esoteric aspect of the LCDM model, and doesn't necessarily know very much about it's weaknesses as a scientific model, let alone know much if anything at all about alternative cosmology models. I think they tend to suffer from a type of 'confirmation bias' where it's easier for them to simply give their own beliefs a free pass with respect to criticism, and look to find even small flaws in any other model in an effort to "debunk" it, and make themselves feel good.

I agree that you can't force someone to change their mind, only they can do that for themselves. I think one of the first steps toward free one's mind, and embracing EU/PC theory is recognizing that EU/PC theory is based on real empirical physics, and recognizing that major parts of the LCDM model are a complete departure from empirical laboratory physics. That's not an easy thing to do if you've been indoctrinated in the LCDM way of thinking, and you haven't spent much time even studying other cosmology models.

I think it's quite telling actually that so called "professionals" didn't set poor Dave straight with respect to his numerous scientific and historical errors. It demonstrates that even so called "professionals" know almost nothing at all about the history of EU/PC theory.

[Sceptical lefty]

It's pretty pointless getting upset over the antics of someone like Professor Dave. He could perhaps be likened to a Catholic priest defending papal dogma, or a political partisan defending all actions of his own party while condemning all actions of opposing parties, even though many of the actions are common to all parties under consideration.
His starting point is recognising the certain truth of the Standard Model of the universe and, consequently, the inherent falsity of all competing theories. He isn't searching for the truth; he has already found it and is taking appropriate steps to defend it from the foul machinations of heretics -- like Mr Mozina.
If his personal interests are also served by his actions, can anyone be reasonably surprised?
Strict objectivity is as rare among leading scientists as it is in the broad community. The truth will ultimately prevail, but only when any possibility of sustaining the institutionalised fantasy of the Standard Model has been extinguished.
Funnily enough, I see a possibility of accelerating this process in the Safire Project. If it suddenly becomes possible to, say, cheaply transmute elements, or dispose of toxic (particularly radioactive) waste, or some other potentially lucrative activity, then the inrushing flood of funds is likely to create a large bunch of new converts. Self-interest is a very powerful motivator -- much more so than mere science.

[EtherQuestions]

With the exception of Tim, most of the arguments directed against EU models have been wildly inaccurate to start with. It's logically and scientifically impossible to publicly defend a scientifically inaccurate statement. Since no EU model predicts the sun to emit "no neutrinos", those kinds of statements are not scientifically or logically defensible. Likewise, since no EU/PC model denies the role of gravity, it's impossible to defend that kind of irrational nonsense.

I agree, Tim's arguments are more respectable as they don't rely on direct misinformation and the common tactic by others who mostly apply heaps of condescending strawman ad-hominem and vitriol to arguments with no substance, these are unintelligent psychological arguments (not logical) that work on feeble minds.

I hope most people agree, that we do need true logical critiques of EU Theory really as much as possible to find any potential flaws in the model, so it can be modified/changed where necessary and bring us closer to the scientific truth. What we do not require is misinformation about what the theory even postulates and also psychological unscientific arguments.

[EtherQuestions]

3. I don't think most people are able to understand that
alternative models might work as well. Or even work better. Hundreds of them.
It requires some intelligence, but mainly the ability to follow different paths of thinking.
People that program a lot, seem to be better trained at this, because it is the
only way to find errors in your program.
In science the education is often limiting the paths.
Because science education requires that.
So how more educated and specialized the person is,
the harder it is for this person to follow other paths of thinking.

"I don't think most people are able to understand that alternative models might work as well. Or even work better. Hundreds of them."

This is very true, for example most people think Mercury's orbit is the "golden goose" of General Relativity, and 100% proves space is curved into the 4th dimension because "the mathematics predicts it" and all other theories cannot.

Most people also have no idea:

1.) There ARE OTHER field theories (weak field theory, dual-vector field gravito-magnetic theory, etc.) that do not rely on space-curvature that mathematically predict the same results.
2.) The facts of Mercury's precession were discovered DECADES before General Relativity. Einstein "predicted" nothing, him and the other founders of GR simply fitted the mathematics to an already known fact (Einstein actually made this task one of the challenges for the development of the theory).
3.) 90% of YouTubers are misrepresenting this fact to large amounts of viewers, they often state things such as "this was one of countless predictions of GR that turned out to be true!". (Including most of the popular physics channels.)


Dual-vector field gravitational theory (gravito-magnetic) beats GR on many other predictions, this is my personal favorite gravitational theory by Oleg Jefimenko as it only relies on a dual gravitation field (to mass) in analogy to how there are magnetic fields (to charge). But can be interpreted physically in many ways, Jefimenko just provides the mathematics.