Some of us have, you know, a job.

This is just my infromed thoughts on some of their theories. That they do not really have a problem with gravity but more with quantum mechanics and relativity. They claim astronomers made up fusion and all the sub atomic particles to justifer usin gravity. Also most them seem to think astonomers do not who Maxwell, Telsa and other 19th century electrical physicists or what they did. Actually EM is taught 1st, 2nd and 3rd years, also there is a radio observatory on Muana Kea named after Maxwell.
No doubt they are very smart people in their own fields but have problems understanding some of the more modern physics.

I shall use direct quotes of Nathan’s own words, but not give the source; if any reader is interested in the source, please use Google or ask me for them.

First, you never find gas outside planetary atmospheres. It’s all plasma, partially or fully ionized. Even at 0.01% ionization (i.e. 1 atom in 10,000 ionized) it obeys plasma fluid dynamics, not gas dynamics.

Things like this are a very common in the writings of EUers (though “plasma fluid dynamics” is not a common term AFAIK), and Nathan made assertions similar to this many times. The core EUers’ idea is that two-part:

a) BECAUSE the universe is so overwhelmingly plasma, ONLY plasma physics can be used to describe it

b) mainstream astronomers/astrophysicists/cosmologists (for shorthand, “astronomers”) NEVER use plasma physics in their work.

There’s a nuance concerning “plasma physics” that is often found in EUers’ writing, and something Nathan also said, to the effect that there is BUT ONE TRUE PLASMA PHYSICS (and what the few astronomers who do study plasma physics learn is not this ONE TRUE version). For example Nathan said:

Note that plasma fluid dynamics is very, very different from what astronomers learn as “MHD”; the former describes real materials, while the latter … well, it has nice mathematical properties.

you should know that when you say “MHD”, you’re referring to a profoundly unphysical approximation whose only merit is that neatly avoids the details that make real plasma interesting. (A unit of MHD seems to be part of the standard astronomy curriculum, which may be worse than no exposure at all; ignorance is easier to fix than knowing what “ain’t so”.)

About MHD: a model that is incompatible with Birkeland currents can hardly be called first-order; it’s more akin to Aristotelian gravity than Newtonian. We don’t “lack better models” than MHD; we have PFD,

EUers have very high regard for the work of Birkeland; they also use the term “Birkeland currents”. Sometimes this means field-aligned currents (the more commonly used term in plasma physics), other times it’s clear they have no idea what they mean. Outside the community of space scientists who study the planetary (etc) magnetospheres, only EUers use this term wrt astronomical phenomena (AFAIK). Here’s Nathan again:

If, on the other hand, it’s not really “hot”, but merely plasma moving fast in a monstrously scaled-up Birkeland current, that problem’s solved. Then, however, there would be no need for the dark matter.

Invoking Birkeland currents (or similar) as a way to make dark matter disappear is also common in EUers’ writings, as is an insistence that the scientific work to show this was done many decades ago; Nathan again:

The Plasma Universe people have been predicting precisely this observation for decades.

For EUers, there have been people working diligently on applying plasma physics to astronomy, scientifically, and they have published at least some of their results. Nathan’s term for them (”plasma astronomers“) is, AFAIK, new:

The fact is that plasma astronomers have long predicted plasma connections between stars, between galaxies in a cluster, and between clusters. Here we see a plasma connection between clusters, precisely as predicted.

Not surprisingly, in internet fora EUers’ claims are frequently challenged and requests made for substantiation and support of the EUers’ claims. Particularly pointed are requests for references to published papers where these claims can be checked independently. The response to such challenges and requests is two-fold: some EUers happily cite papers referenced on one or two websites devoted to things EU; others simply do not respond in any way at all.

I can’t supply Nathan quotes of non-response, but I can say that I found very few cases where Nathan did respond with sources.

One more for now:

When you find yourself reaching for unobservables like neutron stars and dark matter to avoid applying well-known (albeit too “fiendishly difficult”) physics, recognize that you’re in a hole and stop digging.

For EUers, dark matter, black holes, and neutron stars are not real. The observations which lead astronomers to conclude that such things exist are, to EUers, (easily) accounted for by application of (the ONE TRUE) plasma physics, or they could be if only astronomers would actually apply (the ONE TRUE) plasma physics.

Later: Arp, demonstrated in the lab, cosmology and GR, and more …

The trouble is that there is no such thing as [Plasma Universe] cosmology. There is a set of ideas, ranging from the totally ridiculous (the sun is powered by electricity) to the merely stupid (flat galactic rotation curves can be explained by electromagnetic forces) to phenomena not fully understood by anyone (solar flares) to the totally mundane (most [ordinary] matter in the universe is plasma).

Every single concrete idea which has been put forward – of which there have not been many – has either been debunked or turns out to be consistent with mainstream astrophysics. After the fact, [handlename] has then declared that those ideas weren’t [components of Plasma Universe cosmology] after all. Every attempt to get him to produce a concrete or quantitative prediction of [components of Plasma Universe cosmology] has failed, largely I think because he recognizes that it will probably be shown false in short order, leaving him with few options.

So instead he continues making vague statements about [components of Plasma Universe cosmology], and spends most of his posts attacking aspects of the standard cosmological model (relying on the logic of false dichotomy: if the standard theory is wrong mine must be right – even though I don’t have one).

He runs away whenever he gets too thoroughly trapped. For example we had a long discussion on magnetic reconnection – a standard and well understood phenomenon which he claimed violated Maxwell’s equations. Since this was an extremely clear example, I decided that it would make a good test. If [handlename] couldn’t learn or admit he was wrong about that, he never would about anything and there wasn’t much point in conversation. After months of being bludgeoned with irrefutable experimental, theoretical, and numerical evidence, he had totally reversed his position – while denying he had changed at all. When confronted with proof in the form of his own old posts (internet fora are nice that way) he ran away, and has only been back rarely since.

I wonder how common the behaviour described in this quote is, where Electric Universe/Plasma Universe/Plasma Cosmology proponents participate in internet discussion fora (which have, explicitly or implicitly, a ‘we-do-only-science-here’ framework)?

Now for avoidance of doubt, Nathan Myers is on record as saying:

For the record, I haven’t promoted any sort of “Electric Universe” model, theory, or what-have you

I don’t know what an “Electric Universe proponent” would be

He is also on record as disliking lies and liars, and making strong statements about disingenuous behaviour.

I wonder what the similarities are between what Electric Universe/Plasma Universe/Plasma Cosmology proponents write in internet discussion fora and what Nathan has written in these blogs? And what has he written that is different from that body of writing (where the scope of the discussion is comparable)?

I found it all quite interesting. A lot way above my head, but very interesting. I was hoping Nathan would respond, because you asked some rather good questions.