Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

I see that there's a new video posted on Youtube on May 1st of this year by Professor Dave Games which you can find here:

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.

Professor Dave Game's response to my criticisms of his video:

Professor Dave Explains replied: "So the sun emits charged particles due to FUSION, therefore invisible electric currents connect all the stars and galaxies? You're a frack moron."

He didn't actually use the term 'frack(ing)", that's an edit by the filters on this website.

Yes, that's actually his entire scientific rebuttal to every single point that I made about the numerous errors in Dave's presentation. I did post a link to this thread on Youtube in case anyone would like to understand all the errors that Professor Dave made. Wow. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by such a childish response. His irrational response speaks volumes about his lack of professionalism. He didn't even make a single valid scientific argument in response to any of my many criticisms of his video.

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.

Michael Mozina wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 9:28 pm 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!

There's a clear pattern that emerges when someone tries to publicly "debunk" EU/PC theories. They almost all invariably rely upon a combination of ad-hominem attacks galore, blatantly false statements, complete misrepresentations of the facts and gross oversimplifications. They never seem to even intellectually grasp, let alone acknowledge the scientific difference between a *cosmology* model, and a *solar* model. They fail to do their homework by reading any of the actual relevant published materials.

I'd be down right embarrassed to be Dave Games and call myself a "professional" while making highly erroneous claims about various cosmology models. Most EU/PC amateurs tend to do *far* more extensive research on the LCDM model than so called "professionals" spend trying to correctly understand EU/PC theory. How Dave Games or anyone else even believes that EU/PC theory makes no quantified predictions is simply beyond me. There''s more than a full century of mathematical modeling going all the way back to Kristian Birkeland and hundreds of published papers by Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Bruce, Scott and many others. Peratt's even built computer models to put his ideas to the "test".

The fact that Dave doesn't even take the time to familiarize himself with such models in no way justifies his flat out misrepresentation of the facts. It's inexcusable and demonstrates his complete scientific incompetence. Dave's entire video is based apparently on only what he has seen in a few Thunderbolt videos without ever once lifting a finger to study the topic "professionally". It's like he never bothered to even read Alfven's work at all, let alone Peratt's work or Birkeland's work or Lerner's work. If they can't be bothered to even do a little professional research, it simply makes no sense at all to put your name to a presentation full of half truth's and flat out lies. It just makes them look completely professionally incompetent and it demonstrates the primary reason why astronomers are stuck in the dark ages of physics. They don't actually "know" anything about astronomy. They don't even understand the strengths and weaknesses of their own model, nor do they actually understand any alternatives to their model. They're reduced to using ridiculous placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the universe we live in. They wallow around in pure ignorance and proudly try to pass themselves off as 'professionals" while sticking both feet right down their own throat. it's sad and irrational behavior, but I've seen that same pattern play out over and over and over again with all EU/PC haters.

There's nothing "professional" about Professor Dave Games' hit piece in EU/PC theory. His video is however "destructive", not only to "scientific truth", but also to his own professional reputation. He's clearly just lazy and scientifically incompetent. Sad, sad, sad. Even when I took the time to point out a few of his problems for him, he simply resorted to childish name calling. That just demonstrates that he has no real interest in science or truth.

There were a few points in the latter part of Dave Games' video that were worth responding to, so I'll add them to my critique today.

Dave irrationally and erroneously states that:

"The electric universe must be justified by it's own empirical evidence, which is never offered, not even in a vague qualitative way."

So is that statement even *remotely* true? No, of course not!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

In fact, the truth of the matter is that not only has electric universe theory been justified in an *empirical* laboratory setting in a *concrete* empirically justified qualitative way for more than a full century, it's also been justified in a *quantitative* way for over a century as well. The electric universe model has been justified qualitatively and quantitatively starting with the work of Kristian Birkeland. Birkeland includes pages and pages of quantitative justifications for the electric universe model and he included mathematical predictions galore, most of which have already been confirmed by satellites in space.

https://archive.org/download/norwegiana ... ririch.pdf

The whole last section of Birkeland's two volume set of writings describes his mathematical analysis and predictive mathematical models! Dave is evidently entirely ignorant of a full century of high quality qualitative and quantitative evidence to support the electric universe theory. For a so called "professional astrophysicist", Dave seems to be completely scientifically incompetent when it comes to *actual research* of a complicated scientific topic. Apparently everything that Dave *thinks* that he knows about electric universe theory comes from a few Thunderbolts videos that he watched on Youtube one day! Sheesh. Dave is certainly no "professional" when it comes to scientific research. No wonder he's so ignorant of this entire topic.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -5980-5_15
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781461478188

There are *entire books*, not to mention over a *hundred* published papers between Alfven and Peratt which describe not only qualitative evidence to support the concept of an important electric component to our universe, but also strong *quantitative* descriptions to support it! Again, Dave's statements are so unprofessional and so wrong, it's simply absurd.

Most of he last part of Dave's video is based on his constant use of loaded language, like "dulusions", "hoax", "cult", yada yada yada and pure denial. None of it is based on any serious scientific analysis of any published papers by Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Scott or anyone else. In fact Dave is in pure and complete denial of even the existence of those published materials.

Dave does eventually talk about things that are "real". While he fixates on "magnetic fields", he simply ignores the fact that those magnetic fields cannot exist in *plasma* at all without current and the electric fields that produce that current. In short, Dave tries to "dumb down" *electromagnetism" to simply "magnetism". In real plasma, it simply doesn't work that way! Electric fields also exist in space.

One comment that Dave makes in the last half of his video really blew up the iron meter from my perspective. At one point Dave describes the observation of magnetic fields in space and he states,:

"...so some small percentage of what they say is true. This exemplifies the way that is easier to structure a lie around a kernel of truth, so as to provide an air of plausibility and then pile the nonsense on top."

That comment almost made me spit coffee out my nose the first time I heard it, especially considering the fact that only 5% of the LCDM model is actually based upon empirically justified (in the lab) forms of physics, presumably to provide an air of plausibility. Meanwhile, the other 95 percent of the LCDM model is based on metaphysical and empirically unjustifiable nonsense that is piled on top! Dave really blew up the irony meter with that comment.

He immediately then erroneously claims that:

"There is truly no evidence whatsoever for the primary claims made by the electric universe",

That is absolutely false because Kristian Birkeland provided such evidence *in the lab* over a century ago! Dave is absolutely clueless about electric universe theory because apparently everything that Dave thinks that he knows about EU theory comes from a couple of Youtube videos that he watched one day. Holy Cow! How can anyone be so ignorant and so egotistical to put together a complete piece of crap video like that? Wow. Dave should be ashamed of himself and his lack of effort to even understand EU theory from over a century scientific literature on the topic. He embarrassed the hell out of himself.

Perhaps my favorite line in the whole videos is where Dave states "No astrophysicist that is worth their salt would endorse the electric universe." The reality is that no astrophysicist worth their salt would base everything they think they know about the electric universe on a couple of Thunderbolt Youtube videos that they watched one day, but apparently that's *exactly* what Dave did! He did *absolutely no scientific research whatsoever* into the topic of EU theory! I doubt he's even read Birkeland's work for himself in fact.

Dave then asks what the allure of EU theory might be if everything he said is true. Of course the reality is that almost *nothing* that he said was actually objectively true to begin with, so he simply "makes up" a bucket full of ridiculously insulting, and highly inflammatory claims and labels about the EU community *as a whole* no less, and none of that was true either.

He falsely claims that EU proponent love to "mock Einstein" (and GR theory) and yet I absolutely do nothing of the sort, neither does Alfven, Peratt, Lerner or most EU proponents. In fact I fully embrace and support GR theory. Sure the EU community has it "skeptics" of GR theory, but then even mainstream authors prefer to use MOND theory rather than GR to explain galaxy rotation curves and such, and they too tend to look for a 'theory of everything" based on QM which might one day replace GR. Dave's "first point of delusion" is that he even *remotely* understands EU theory to begin with, and his second "point of delusion' is irrationally assuming that all EU proponents think exactly alike. Dave paints with a ridiculously overly-broad brush as he hurls numerous personal insults at the *entire* EU community.

The most ironic statement that Dave makes in the entire video is when he states that:

"Insecure individuals are triggered by the notion of brilliance that is beyond their comprehension, and prefer to dismiss it rather than going through the effort of *studying* to comprehend relativity or mass energy equivalence or anything else from Einstein's body of work. It is much simpler and more self aggrandizing to reject it all outright and assert one's self as being more knowledgeable than him. This sort of narcissistic delusion is so transparent that it doesn't take a psychologist to diagnose it".

The great irony of that particular comment is that Dave is absolutely guilty of that exact same lazy, self aggrandizing, narcissistic behavior as it relates to Kristian Birkeland and to the Nobel prize winning author Hannes Alfven, and his/their use of circuit theory to plasma in space, and their entire body of work related to the role of electricity in space. Dave never once bothered to lift a finger to actually go through the effort of seriously *studying* any of it! Instead he simply watched a couple of Youtube videos one afternoon on the topic of electricity in space, never bothered to study it with any scientific integrity at all. Instead he egotistically launched himself into a purely ignorant tirade about a topic which he clearly knows *nothing* about! Wow! He blew the irony meter way out into space with that statement. By his own definition, Dave is a lazy, unprofessional, hypocritical and narcissistic putz! Dave literally projected his own personal ignorance of the whole topic of EU theory onto the entire EU "world" as he describes it.

But Dave goes on and on putting his own foot in his mouth over and over again. He then launches himself into a hilariously hypocritical tirade about how "EU theory is arrogant enough to offer spiritual connection", calling it "juvenile bait as the spiritual satisfaction of a theory has absolutely nothing to do with it's validity". Dave is apparently blissfully unaware of the fact that the entire "big bang" cosmology model was written by a Catholic Priest so as to be consistent with the phrase "Let their be light" from the book of Genesis and spiritual concepts of "creation". Dave just keeps digging his hypocritical holes deeper and deeper as he goes and blowing up the irony meter over and over and over again.

He continues then to go on and on about how GR theory has been scientifically validated over and over again, as though GR is the sole domain of a single cosmology model (which it's not), and erroneously insisting that EU cosmology is incompatible with GR theory when in fact Hannes Alfven based his *cosmology* model on GR theory and circuit theory. Over and over and over again Dave attempts to irrationally ride the coattails of GR while blatantly ignoring the fact that there's a difference between GR theory to describe gravity, and his LCMD cosmology model that requires unnecessary (to GR) forms of "dark energy" and exotic forms of matter. GR does not depend on the validity of dark energy or dark matter. Only the LCDM *cosmology* model requires such metaphysical nonsense. GR theory and the LCDM model are not one and the same thing, and GR theory isn't the sole domain of the LCDM model either!

Dave talks about how EU takes on a religious tone because it tries to paint Einstein as a "false prophet" (which it doesn't), all the while ignoring the fact that Dave spends about half of his video trying to paint Einstein as some sort of epic scientific "savior" of science. Sure, Einstein was a smart guy, but even Einstein had human failures. He originally rejected QM for instance. He originally rejected Lamatrie's 'space expansion" big bang idea too as "abominable physics" until he had to begrudgingly accept that it was a valid mathematical (if not physical) solution to his equations. Einstein called the introduction of a non zero constant into GR theory his "greatest blunder" too and yet the LCDM model is *based on a non zero constant*. So much for Einstein being some sort of 'infallible" savior of astronomy. It's ironic that Dave keeps pushing the hypocrisy button over and over again in his presentation.

Dave states "If something works, it's "science".". That is true Dave, and EU concepts *work* empirically in the lab, unlike your dark energy and dark matter metaphysical nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

When Dave gets around to simulating a sustained full sphere solar corona and a sustained planetary aurora simulation based on "magnetic reconnection" then and only then can Dave can lecture the EU community about what is "working science" and what is "pseudoscience".

I have other things to do today so I'll stop here for now. There is some other ridiculously false commentary in the last bit of Dave's pointless video, but alas it's all quite repetitive and it's all false and insulting to our intelligence because Dave obviously never studied the *history* of this topic in the first place! His entire pointless rant is based on complete ignorance of the topic and a few weird ideas that he evidently got from watching a acouple of Youtube videos.

Dave's presentation is completely unprofessional. It's all about Dave's ignorance of the topic, it's century of history, and Dave's unwillingness to even bother to study the EU topic with any sort of intellectual integrity. What an embarrassing and crappy video.

A YouTube commenter brought up Birkeland currents as an example of plasma phenomena in space, and Dave -- if you sifted through his insults -- claimed they do not exist. I provided a Wikipedia link to Birkeland currents (and the Earth's aurora that they animate), and Dave deleted his and my posts. I subsequently called him out on it, and he backtracked and claimed he never said that -- only that intergalactic currents don't exist.

I suggested his audience read Peratt's Physics of the Plasma Universe, and, well, you can predict the response.

I must confess, I had watched a video or two of his a while back and found them enjoyable, so I subscribed, but I was STUNNED -- ABSOLUTELY STUNNED -- at the baseness, hostility, meanness, and condescension in his EU "critique". Very disappointing ... in fact, downright disturbing. I unsubscribed.

Ironically, the only "hoax" is that he's a professor.

I can only submit that I have never heard of this Dave, and I'm am glad for that. Why he thinks he's so popular and an authority, I also do not want to know. Is he the new AlexJnes of the mainstream astro/cosmo/gravity physic cult?

Max Photon wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 1:47 am I must confess, I had watched a video or two of his a while back and found them enjoyable, so I subscribed, but I was STUNNED -- ABSOLUTELY STUNNED -- at the baseness, hostility, meanness, and condescension in his EU "critique". Very disappointing ... in fact, downright disturbing. I unsubscribed.

If one reads through Professor Games' responses to various posts on Youtube, it's obvious that Dave suffers from a bad case of what's called "moral disengagement". In this case Dave identifies every EU proponents as his "foe" and he's incapable of seeing us as unique individuals. He therefore abandons all ethical standards as it relates to this specific topic. He instantly resorts to name calling and personal attacks when confronted with any information that runs contrary to his world view. Here's a few examples:

Ian Tresman
1 day ago
The Electric Universe does NOT deny gravity, it says that electromagnetic forces are sometimes more significant. This is why 1.5 million tonnnes of matter is lost to the Solar Wind each second. Electromagnetic forces not only overcome the Sun's immense gravity, but charged particles accelerate away from the Sun, whereas gravity suggests it would slow.

In fact all charged matter smaller than a grain is dominated by electromagnetic forces, which include the interplanetary medium, interstellar medium, and the intergalactic medium, ie. 99.999% of the Universe. By definition, all plasma is dominated by electromagnetic forces.

Professor Dave Explains
22 hours ago
No, it isn't. You are trying to say that because the solar wind exists, there must be magical electric currents that connect all the stars and all the galaxies and power them, and also that relativity is wrong. That's very dumb. You're dumb.

Ian just tried to explain to Dave that EU theory doesn't deny the role of gravity or GR theory as it relates to influences in space, rather it simply *adds* the additional force of electromagnetism to the process when trying to describe things like solar wind. Instead of Dave responding rationally to his response, Dave goes into hardcore denial of what Ian just said about gravity, and irrationally insists that Ian is claiming that relativity is wrong and claims that Ian is dumb. Dave simply cannot handle any "new information" which might conflict with his own personally world view, so instead of acknowledging Ian's point, he goes into pure denial of what Ian just said with respect to gravity and falsely accuses Ian of rejecting GR anyway, and launches himself into an unethical personal attack. That's a completely unprofessional response and an completely immoral response to Ian's comments. In fact, Dave pretty much verbally abuses everyone who attempts to educate him about EU theory:

Phil Ossifer
15 hours ago
I appreciate the attempt, but your understanding of the electric universe perspective is still flawed. I won't attempt to address everything you mention in your video in a comment, but even from a layman perspective you have not understood what they are saying. As an example, EU is not saying gravity models are incorrect. It is simply inefficient at all scales. Gravity is in order of magnitudes weaker than the electromagnetic force. That is simply a fact. The magnetic field reflects this as it abides by an inverse cube law rather than the square law. In other words gravity as it is also explained by EU is a byproduct of the electromagnetic force. Again, there is a lot to say about your misunderstanding of the actual argument. Suffice it to say, you have simply failed to debunk EU. Good attempt tho.

Professor Dave Explains
14 hours ago
Haha, they are not saying gravity models are incorrect, but the way we use gravity to explain phenomena is incorrect? No wonder you fell for EU, you're a frack moron.

Here again, instead of acting "morally' and "logically' when confronted with the inconvenient fact that EU theory does *not* deny the role of gravity in space, Dave simply takes the unethical approach and does the same thing to Phil that he did to me and calls him names. Dave acts like a two year old when anyone tries to point out any of the *numerous* problems in his presentation.

Joel stan
2 days ago
The electric universe has been promoted for 250 years and not just by fringe scientist and lay persons.I have never heard anyone promoting the EU say gravity does not exist or is not a force.Observations in the last 30 years give a lot of credibility to the Electric Universe.You should research some of them instead of sounding like a flat earther.

Professor Dave Explains
2 days ago
Nope. It's a hoax. End of story. If you were to actually learn physics, you could see that.

Two hundred plus years of scientific research is simply handwaved at.

Walter Tegischer-Painsi
1 day ago
Regarding to EU: take a look to the "SAFIRE" -Project

Professor Dave Explains
1 day ago
Yeah, I've seen it. It's dumb. What's your point?

According to Dave, even laboratory experiments designed to 'tests' various EU ideas are "dumb".

Hold my ARK
1 day ago
You’re either intentionally leaving out the experiments and have proven EU theory or you’re ignorant to them. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and offer you the opportunity/challenge to debunk the Safire Project findings.

Professor Dave Explains
1 day ago
There's nothing to debunk. It doesn't do anything. It's a hoax.

Dave calls a working physical "test" of a specific (anode) solar model associated with EU theory a "hoax". Note that while both the anode and cathode solar models produce *tangible empirical results* in the lab, including simulating things like a sustained full sphere corona, nothing of the sort has ever been achieved with 'magnetic reconnection". Mainstream models are already a full century behind EU models in the lab and counting.

Peter Lowrie
12 hours ago
Your language; expletives, pejoratives, insults, sarcasm and put-downs do little to advance your theories. If this is the discourse you bring to the discussion you make yourself comparable to a petulant disrespectful teen. Try doing some courses in electrical/plasma engineering before running off your mouth at disciplines in which you seem poorly schooled. There is a lot to be said for balanced and thoughtful insight. Your apparent insecurity/immaturity will one day find mature expression by becoming more respectful and nuanced as you advance in years. One hopes.

Professor Dave Explains
10 hours ago
EU is a hoax, dumbass. There is no "balanced" approach to debunking hoaxes. You show how it's a hoax and move on.

Even when Dave's unethical personal attack behaviors are "called out", he simply ignores their criticisms and goes right back to engaging himself in the same unethical behavior. How very sad indeed.

Once a "hater" has made up their mind on a topic, anyone and everyone who tries to educate him is automatically categorized as an enemy and there are no moral or ethical guidelines and boundaries applied to the entire topic anymore. Anyone who tries to educate Dave is automatically personally attacked because Dave simply cannot handle reality or any information which comes into conflict with his world view.

Dave did exactly the same thing to me and to petty much everyone else who tried to set him straight.

Essentially Dave is guilty of exactly the same behavior that he irrationally accuses the EU community of doing. He's "projecting" his own unethical and immoral behaviors onto the entire EU community. He absolutely refuses to study the EU topic *professionally* by reading and trying to comprehend a centuries' worth of published material on the topic of the role of electricity in space, starting with Birkeland. Instead Dave watched a few Youtube videos and then he egotistically and nationalistically imagined himself to be smarter and more knowledgeable on the topic of the role of electricity in space, than all it's proponents combined, including Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Peratt, etc. Nothing can sway Dave from his views either. The moment anyone tries to educate him, he resorts to childish name calling and personal attacks.

Dave is quite obviously professionally incompetent. No real astrophysicist worth his salt would engage in such childish and irrational behaviors. They'd do their homework. They'd study the topic. They'd read Birkeland's work for themselves and see how and why the EU movement was born, and they'd take the time to really understand the models and mathematical presentations which have *always* been a part of EU theory. They would not go out of their way to *willfully* misrepresent the concept and they'd respond logically to feedback.

Dave does *none* of those things. Instead of taking the time to study Birkeland's work, his models, his mathematical justifications, etc, he simply ignores them entirely. Ditto for everyone since Birkeland in fact. Dave simply cannot handle the truth, so he hides behind pure denial of historical fact, and he sees everyone who disagrees with him as his enemy, worthy of irrational personal attacks.

I hereby formally challenge Professor Games to a public debate on the topic of electricity in space and EU theory. Since there are daily posting limits on this forum, I suggest we debate the EU topic on the plasma cosmology forum on Reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/plasmacosmology/

I would stipulate that this must be a *professional* debate. The only "rules" of the debate are that we both (all) try to keep our comments "civil", keep them focused on the *topics* (rather than individuals) and keep them free of childish name calling and personal insults. Since I moderate that forum, I will agree in advance to *not* remove any of Dave's posts or attempt to moderate his posts during that particular debate. I'll let other moderators on the site enforce the those aforementioned rules as it applies to Dave's posts. I will however enforce the aforementioned rules as they apply to everyone else, myself included.

If Dave is so sure that there's no merit to the EU model of cosmology, and he's willing to publicly attack EU ideas, then surely he's willing to engage in a professional online debate on these topics.

Suspicious0bservers did an awesome rebuttal to Dave as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxM_uB74Zcs

Here, this explains everything about Dave's little tantrum:

Ask Professor Dave #2: Are You A Real Professor?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkA4OImGuBk

(You're going to feel sorry for him by the end.)

And a great dark matter cloud descended on the gravity-well 'Dave UC0cd'. And he was quickly discarded to live a life of making videos about nothing which nobody watched.

Max Photon wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:07 pm Here, this explains everything about Dave's little tantrum:

Ask Professor Dave #2: Are You A Real Professor?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkA4OImGuBk

(You're going to feel sorry for him by the end.)

Ya, that does tend to explain his rude responses, his temper tantrums, and all the hostility that he directs at anyone who questions his erroneous presentations. Apparently Dave Farina is a wannabe professional musician, and a wannabe professor, who simply taught a couple of chemistry classes at a college in LA that specializes in "degrees" in Chinese medicine, acupuncture and chiropractic care before getting himself fired. Apparently no, Dave is not an actual professor, nor a professional astrophysicist. His only claim to fame in education as of 2017 is a BA (Arts) degree in chemistry from a liberal arts college in Minnesota. Now he's evidently trying to drum up a Youtube business by posting "click bait" videos related to topics which he apparently knows little or nothing about. Ya, I kinda felt sorry for him at the end. That video certainly explains a lot about his lack of professionalism and his lack of scientific ethics.

Poor Dave hasn't figured out yet that even if one ignores about 100 papers and a whole book on the topic of circuit theory as it applies to events in space written by the Nobel Prize winning author (and real Professor) Hannes Alfven, one doesn't have to look very hard to find completely free and easily accessible mathematical presentations related to electrical current connecting galaxies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Peratt
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _and_stars
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... icity_grid

And by the way, Peratt's prediction of radio wave emissions and magnetic fields, filaments and current flow between galaxies has already been verified:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... space-news

A mysterious “trail” of magnetic fields and relativistic electrons has been detected along filaments connecting two galaxy clusters, dubbed Abell 0399 and Abell 0401. The monumental discovery is thought to be the first of its kind, revealing a glimpse at how magnetic fields and high-energy particles extend along “cosmic webs” connecting distant objects in the universe. National Institute of Astrophysics (Inaf) of Cagliari scientists identified the bridge using the Low-Frequency Array (LOFAR) radio telescope.

Those "relativistic electrons" are the current that sustains the magnetic fields, generates the predicted radio emissions, and ties the galaxies together electrically though massive Birkeland current filaments. They've also managed to measure the currents flowing out of one galaxy. It's right smack dab in the middle of the range of Peratt's prediction of between 10^17 and 10^19 amps.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... ent-found/

A COSMIC jet 2 billion light years away is carrying the highest electric current ever seen: 10^18 amps, equivalent to a trillion bolts of lightning.

Nice! Peratt totally nailed it.

I sure hope that dear old Dave decides to take up my offer to debate him publicly on Reddit.

I suspect however that Dave will run as fast and as far as he can from that challenge because it isn't as financially lucrative and as easy as creating and posting bogus click bait videos on Youtube. I think Dave's in it for the money, and he's completely disinterested in scientific truth.

After watching that video that you suggested where Dave explains that he's not *actually* a real professor at all, it's pretty clear that Dave is in it for Youtube revenue and he has no real interest whatsoever in scientific accuracy, scientific honesty, scientific integrity, or scientific truth. If you look at his number of views on that EU video he's up to about 45,000 views. A quick search on Google suggests that people receive between 3 and 5 dollars per thousand Youtube views, meaning that Dave has made somewhere between $135 to $225 for that one pathetic video in the last four days, and that's just the revenue from just a single video. That's not bad for an otherwise unemployed musician with a BA degree, mascaraing as a "professor" on Youtube.

Dave is obviously in it for Youtube revenue. The more controversy he generates the better because more people watch his video. It doesn't matter to Dave if any of his BS about EU theory is actually true, all that matters to Dave is that he generates revenue from it. The more controversy he generates, the more views he gets and the more money he makes. That video that you cited explains exactly why Dave is so completely unprofessional and so careless when it comes to the scientific facts. Dave simply doesn't even care about scientific accuracy in the first place, he's just in it for the money!

Unemployed wannabe musician Dave unethically tries to pass himself off as a "professor" because it helps give him an air of credibility on Youtube. Honesty and accuracy aren't Dave's strong suit. If he was honest and called his show "Some random unemployed guy named Dave explains", he'd never impress anyone, so he just lied about being an active professor and lied about EU theory so he could make some money off his video. How pathetic. I don't feel sorry for Dave. I feel sorry for anyone who watches his videos and actually believes anything he says.