After getting out a quick response on the Nye-Ham debate (see Quick Notes on the Nye-Ham Debate) I've been accumulating a followup which has grown into at least two posts. I'm still working through a backlog of comments to old posts (such as for Electric Universe: Measurement of the Electric Current in a Kpc-Scale Jet) and emails. A few emails deal with projects and posts that are almost complete, but on which I am doing additional checking.
There has been a rather high-profile defection from the Electric Universe:
Hossein Turner: Critical Issues for Electric Universe Proponents
Probably as a fallout from this, I've been receiving lots of Electric Universe emails which require a little research which I'm still working through. There is also an uptick in hostile, borderline threatening, emails and posts, possibly related to the EU defection.
It has been brought to my attention that 'Creationist astronomer', Danny Faulkner, had recently written a review of Don Scott's "The Electric Sky": Answers In Genesis: Plasma Astronomy
Faulkner recognized the interest in Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe among creationists, which I had noted some years ago. Dr. Faulkner notes many of the same issues with Don Scott's "The Electric Sky" as I have (see The Electric Sky: Short-Circuited.) and documents a few more, but not going into the level of detail of some of the topics in my analysis. Faulkner derides Scott for his different standards of explanations, insisting on standards of evidence for mainstream astronomy while not providing the same standards to his Electric Universe 'solution'.
Dr. Faulkner invokes much of the knowledge base of mainstream astronomy, but actively avoids dealing with issues of time-scales of events but for a mention of the Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale. Faulkner uses much evidence against Electric Universe claims that require our interpretation of the physical laws in the distant cosmos to be essentially correct. Some of his arguments are particularly strange considering his claim in Ken Ham's debate with Bill Nye (more on this later). He also invokes the 'operational' vs. 'historical' science claims which I have dealt with a great deal on this blog:
- Technology from Cosmology, or “Can Creation Science Do That?”. An early response to Ken Ham's claims.
- The Cosmos in Your Pocket: How Cosmological Science Became Earth Technology
- Astronomy as an 'unprovable' science. This post made the TalkOrigins "Post of the Month" for January 2009.
- "Real" Science vs. "Cosmological" and "Origins" Science
- Testing Science at the Leading Edge
- d/dt: The Root of Evolution
- 'Out There' Astrophysics Impacts Technology (again)
Another item brought to my attention recently, and I'm not sure how long it's been there, but there is a disclaimer against the Electric Universe posted at Anthony Peratt's plasmauniverse.info,
"The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'."
"And so it goes…"
-- Lloyd Dobyns
2 comments:
Thank you for posting this. I have been keeping contact with Mr. Turner for a little over a year now and I actually would like to take (a little) credit for showing him the light.
This does not mean though I agree with establishment's conclusions concerning stellar evolution either. I think both EU's interpretation is just as skewed as establishment's interpretation for planet formation.
If you would like to do an expose of how odd my own theory is concerning star evolution, please do. The theory is called stellar metamorphosis.
I am used to ridicule, but now it does not matter. I have over 1147 unique IP downloads of the main paper which has many kooky out of the box ideas that would be instantly peer-reviewed out of existence. Thank god for vixra.org!
Mr. Wolynski,
I've looked at some of your stuff.
When I see stuff like this, I'm reminded of how many times in the history of science in general and astronomy in particular, similar ideas have been suggested but, like Electric Universe, Plasma Cosmology, and Creationism, they failed critical observational tests and have been long since forgotten.
There are thousands of stellar astrophysicists who can use known principles of gravitation, nuclear, gas, and radiation physics tested in laboratories around the world and can use these to plot stellar evolution and structure. Many of these codes are publicly available. I have one running on my home computing systems.
Where is your equivalent capability?
Meanwhile, there are almost as many crank claims about astronomy as there are cranks, indicating that they are more motivated by ego than reality.
You are used to ridicule? That statement also suggests the motivation for making your claims is not scientific reality, but a way of getting attention.
Post a Comment