EtherQuestions wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 6:00 am
longcircuit wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 9:23 pm
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).
Typical.