Brian Dunning suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect on the topic of plasma cosmology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.[1]

In 2018, Brian Dunning published what can only be called a highly erroneous and ridiculously inflammatory "hit piece" on the EU/PC model of cosmology. Quite ironically his own statements on this topic demonstrate rather conclusively that Brian Dunning suffers from a psychological disorder with his same last name. Allow me to demonstrate this point based on his own statements about the EU/PC model.

First of all we have to ask ourselves if Brian Dunning is actually reasonably "knowledgeable" on the EU/PC topic, or does he grossly overestimate his understanding and knowledge of this topic? Does he suffer from illusory superiority on this topic, or is his understanding of the topic based on keen insight, careful study of the topic, and is it highly scientifically accurate? Does he even know enough about the EU/PC topic to be able to objectively evaluate his competence or incompetence on this topic? Let's see what Brian has to say about the EU/PC topic, shall we?

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4651

Unfortunately for Brian, he doesn't even get through the second paragraph without making blanket assertions, some of which are fundamentally false:

Electric Universe theory, also called plasma cosmology, is impossible to describe comprehensively within a short Skeptoid episode — one must sit through tens of hours of YouTube videos or read hundreds of web pages devoted to its verbal gymnastics — but we can touch on a few basics to give the general idea. Its central point holds that conventional physics and cosmology are all wrong; adherents' favorite scapegoats are Einstein and Newton. While proponents acknowledge that gravity exists, they dismiss that it plays any significant role in the universe, and claim instead that electricity is responsible for virtually everything. The orbits of the planets around the Sun are not due to gravity, they say, but to electromagnetic attraction.

First of all it's noteworthy that Dunning chose to equate "electric universe" topics with "plasma cosmology". I can't really complain about that since I do the same thing myself, however, it's noteworthy that Dunning failed to even once mention any of the *scientific books* and *published papers* one might choose to read when attempting to understand "plasma cosmology" since Alfven (a Nobel prize winning physicist) published over 100 papers on this topic and a book as well, and his students Lerner and Peratt have also published papers and books on this topic. Dunning erroneously suggests (and later bluntly states) that there are no published scientific papers/literature on this entire topic! This clearly demonstrates that Dunning doesn't even begin to understand the materials that he's claiming to have evaluated "objectively".

Secondly, while some folks lean toward a "theory of everything" which seeks to tie gravity together with the EM field, most if not all promoters of EU/PC cosmology would freely admit that gravity plays a *significant* role in planetary orbits and embrace some influence of gravity on our solar system. So far Dunning seems to be failing to even grasp the most basic elements of EU/PC theory, specifically he misrepresents that fact that the cosmology model was essentially written by and published by a Nobel prize winning author (Alfven), not by later proponents of the cosmology model that Alfven originally wrote about. It's clear that Dunning has *seriously* overestimated his grasp of the EU/PC topic in general since he seems to know almost nothing of significance about it.

But perhaps I'm being harsh? How does he fair in the rest of the article? Well, unfortunately it just gets worse I'm afraid. For the sake of brevity, I'll simply ignore the fact that he makes blanket assertions about *all* EU/PC proponents and ideas which simply cannot be applied accurately to all individuals and all ideas within the EU/PC umbrella, including topics like neutron stars, black holes, the embracing/or rejection of GR theory, etc. Instead I'll simply list his fundamental misunderstandings of the topic itself. I will however have to point out the fact that he begins by grossly oversimplifying the various solar models related to EU/PC theory:

Stars, they claim, are not powered by nuclear fusion under extreme gravitational confinement, but rather are great balls of electrical discharge, so hot and energetic that the thermonuclear explosions at their periphery are merely incidental and triggered by the extreme electrical heat.

Here it might have been useful had Dunning actually tried to distinguish between "plasma cosmology" as promoted by Alfven (or Birkeland's solar theories) and Juergen's anode solar model. Alas however, Dunning simply fails to even acknowledge the nuanced problems of discussing an entire *cosmology* topic vs. a solar model, and instead he simply "assumes" that everyone involved in electric universe and/or plasma cosmology community embraces an externally powered solar model promoted by Ralph Juergen's. Nothing could be further from the truth unfortunately, but alas Dunning seems to have little or no understanding of the nuances of the variations in solar models proposed over the past century or two. Plasma cosmology is a *cosmology* model, not a single solar model. That's is a major glaring error. For instance, both Birkeland's cathode solar model and Alfven's homopolar generator solar model are *internally* powered models based on what Birkeland described as a 'transmutation of elements" and Alfven simply referred to as fusion. Dunning seems to confuse a solar model with a cosmology model and yet they simply are not the same thing.

This is a great example of Dunning's false sense of understanding of a complex topic like cosmology. He clearly does *not* understand the *cosmology* topic well so he fixates on a single solar model when in fact *at least* three different EU/PC solare models have been proposed over the last century, all under the umbrella of the terms 'electric universe" and/or "plasma cosmology". Dunning is not off to a good start if he's attempting to demonstrate his comprehensive understanding the topic of plasma *cosmology*.

Unfortunately however, Dunning simply dives off the deep end of pure ignorance (of the whole topic) from there:

Fundamentally, the Electric Universe is indistinguishable from virtually all other "alternative science" beliefs. It is promoted exclusively by people uneducated in the relevant sciences and who developed it in isolation from relevant experts, so we don't expect to see it very well informed by actual physics or cosmology.

Obviously Dunning never bothered to read any of the hundred or so published papers by Hannes Alfven who won a Nobel Prize and who used circuit theory to describe events in space. He evidently hasn't read any of Birkeland's work nor does he understand any of the experiments he conducted. He has no clue about Peratt's published papers or his book, or Lerner's published papers (or his book) either. These are/were all highly "educated" people in the relevant sciences, and I dare say far more educated than Dunning in the relevant topics. Does Dunning even understand circuit theory, or plasma physics? Alfven literally wrote the book on these topics and won a Nobel Prize for it too. Does Dunning even understand that? Evidently not.

It is tightly tied in with conspiracy mongering, and its writings brim with words like "orthodoxy" and "dogma" used to dismiss mainstream physics.

It's hard for me to personally understand how LCDM proponents can be engaged in a scientific "conspiracy" when they seem to be doing their best to undermine their own cosmology model by writing about all the ways in which the LCDM model fails various dark matter lab tests, and numerous observational tests, particularly at high redshift. If this is a "conspiracy", it's got to be the worst conspiracy in the history of physics because they keep shooting themselves in the foot over and over again in published paper after published paper. But hey, I'd admit that there's a bias towards 'orthodoxy" and "dogma involved in embracing the LCDM model. He's maybe half right on that point.

Electric Universe adherents generally view themselves as brave mavericks who dare to uncover the real truth about the universe, while traditionalists guard their faith-based physics to protect their grant money. We hear this same tired old claim time and time again throughout pseudoscience — be it in perpetual motion machines, quack alternative medicine, pyramid schemes, and the flat Earth.

However, let us not make an ad-hominem attack against the Electric Universe.

There's a certain irony when Dunning references "perpetual motion" machines since the LCDM model is the epic epitome of "perpetual motion" where "dark energy" and space expansion grossly violate the conservation of energy laws. Talk about irony overload. He hurls some of the most irrational ad hom comparisons, and then has the audacity to pretend *not* to engage himself in ad hominem attacks. Talk about living in pure denial. Not once did he bother to discuss a single scientific paper in his opening few paragraphs, instead he seems to be in staunch denial of their existence.

It is not wrong because it is an alternative science. It is wrong because it is wrong. We'll go into this, but first we should talk a little bit about the red flags that compel us to apply the Skeptoid treatment to it. Let's harken all the way back to Skeptoid #37 where we presented a checklist to help us spot pseudoscience, and apply some of those points to the Electric Universe:

So he claims that EU/PC theory is not wrong because it's alternative science, it's wrong because it's wrong, but then he immediately avoids the actual science again and instead launches himself into yet another ad-hom filled tirade which is full of misinformation and false accusations:

Is the claim promoted through mass media, or through scientific channels?Nothing about the Electric Universe has been published in scientific journals, because it can't pass peer review. So its promoters publish it themselves, on the Internet and in self-published books. It's a big red flag when science journals all reject your stuff.

Case in point. We must surmise by this outrageously false statement that Dunning has never bothered to read any of Alfven's hundreds of *published* papers, any of Peratt's *published* papers, any of Lerner's *published* work, any of Bruce's work, or Birkeland's work for himself. Virtually all of Alfven's work was published in peer reviewed scientific journals and AFAIK he's essentially the 'founder' of plasma "cosmology". You can't even describe the whole electric universe in cosmological terms without referencing his work on *cosmology*. Peratt has also published his work in scientific journals and wrote a very good book on the topic which includes a lot of math. Even little ol' me managed to get some of my papers published in the Journal of Fusion energy and The Physics of Atomic Nuclii. So essentially Dunning is completely ignorant of this entire topic, and his personal rants are simply born of pure ignorance of the whole topic in general. It's pretty clear by now that Dunning is *way* overestimating his actual knowledge and his understanding of this topic. In essence Dunning knows absolutely *nothing* about it, and he's simply tilting at windmills of his own ignorant design. And it gets even worse:

Do the claimants state that their claim is being suppressed by authorities?Absolutely they do. Claims of suppression by the scientific elite is a core of the Electric Universe. Insisting that you're the victim of a conspiracy is easier than admitting your idea is wrong.

Well, yes and no. Yes, it's virtually impossible to get alternative (to BB) cosmology models published in mainstream astronomy journals but that hasn't stopped anyone from getting their work published through other scientific publications. I'd be happy to admit being "wrong" about anything I've managed to get published in a scientific journal, but alas Dunning hasn't even stated anything that's actually wrong with any published paper related to plasma cosmology. Instead he's been fully engaged in misinformation and oversimplification, and actually he's just pure denial of all the published materials associated with this topic.

Dunning then proceeds to blow up the irony meter with his next comment:

Does the claim pass the Occam's Razor test?Occam's Razor tells us that the option requiring the fewest new assumptions is probably the true one. The Electric Universe would require us to abandon virtually all of astrophysics and other sciences; massive, massive changes to the foundations of our knowledge of the world. So by Occam's Razor, it is almost certainly wrong.

That's absolutely hysterical, and flat out false. First of all, *unlike* the LCDM model the EU/PC model is 100 percent compatible with every other area of physics, including the *standard* particle physics model, circuit theory, MDH theory (if properly applied), EM theory, etc. On the other hand, the LCDM model requires us to *abandon* the standard particle physics model, and embrace at *least* four *metaphysical* constructs which A) violate the laws of physics, and which are B) utterly unnecessary in EU/PC theory, including "space expansion", "inflation", "dark energy" and "dark matter". Yes indeed it's incompatible with the LCDM model but not the entire field of astrophysics which includes things like planetary physics, etc. If we apply an Occam's razor test, the LCDM model gets blown completely out of the water by the fact that it's incompatible with the standard particle physics model, incompatible with the conservation laws of energy, and requires *four metaphysical* processes which are not required in EU/PC theory. By that argument alone, the LCDM model is absolute *toast*! Dunning completely blew up the irony meter with that comment.

Does the claim come from a source dedicated to supporting it?We often see that the promoters of fringe pseudosciences are dedicated to their pet belief; they do not also write and publish on conventional or non-controversial topics. Good science papers present as much information as they can that is critical of their idea, which is a good sign, and it's almost always lacking in papers about the Electric Universe.

Well, while I haven't *published* any papers on other scientific topics, I've certainly written about them over the years. For instance I embrace GR theory without all the metaphysical nonsense associated with the LCMD model. I embrace the standard particle physics model, evolutionary theory, and my other (non cosmological) beliefs are essentially 100 percent compatible with other branches of science and physics. I can't say I've felt any strong need to personally try to *publish* anything related to those topics because A) my beliefs are congruent with those other topics and B) they aren't as interesting to me personally. Alfven certainly wrote about more than just cosmology, though his later work (after his Nobel Prize) was primarily focused on cosmology theory. Birkeland certainly wrote about many topics, and held many scientific patents as well. I'm sure Peratt has written about more than just plasma cosmology topics.

Publications like the IEEE aren't specifically related to any particular cosmology model but they do published papers on the topic of plasma cosmology, as does/did The Journal of Fusion energy.

I can't help but wonder if Dunning has ever even gotten *any* paper related to astronomy published in any scientific publication. Has he? If so, can someone cite his work for us? I'm pretty sure that he's never won a Nobel prize in physics like Alfven.

Do the claimants have legitimate credentials?If someone has not spent a career learning what all their predecessors have discovered, and developed an intimate familiarity with how we know what we know in a field, then they are among the least likely people to correctly find a hole in that knowledge. That no credentialed astrophysicists are supporters of the Electric Universe should be a huge red flag warning it diverges widely from what we know.

Well, let's see. Alfven literally wrote the Nobel prize winning book on plasma physics, and he also happened to write the book on how to apply physics to the plasma of spacetime. Peratt is employed in the realm of plasma physics so he also has all the right credentials. Lerner is also gainfully employed in the field of plasma physics so he too has all the necessary credentials one might hope for. I seriously doubt that Dunning ever bothered to do a real poll on which astronomers may or may not 'support" any particular aspect of plasma cosmology theory or Birleland's work, etc. Bruce seemed to have all the necessary credentials related to the work that he published too. I seriously doubt however that Dunning has actually bothered to read any of their work for himself based on his comments.

Electric Universe believers, on the other hand, often know the name of one other physicist. It's a man who is the de facto Patron Saint of the Electric Universe theory, and whose name graces virtually every video and article on the subject. Swedish plasma physicist Hannes Alfvén won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics in magnetohydrodynamics. The Alfvén wave is named for him, an important phenomenon related to space weather such as sunspots and aurorae. Although Alfvén never proposed any of the ideas now central to Electric Universe theory, its proponents consider his work in plasma physics as sort of "close enough" that they regard it as a legitimate scientific foundation for their belief.

Well, *finally*. While *Dunning* might only know the name of *one* other physicist who's ever promoted plasma cosmology theory, that isn't the case with most EU/PC proponents. Yes, we've all probably read at least some of Alfven's work for ourselves, but I've also read Peratt's papers and his book Physics of the Plasma universe. I've read Lerner's papers and his book too. I've read Birkeland's work and Bruce's work and Scott's work and many other authors of less renown within the EU'/PC community.

Unfortunately I get the impression that Dunning hasn't actually read *any* of their works, including Alfven.

Just as Nikola Tesla's name has been co-opted by believers in various alternative sciences who regard him as an almost messianic figure, so has the name of Hannes Alfvén been hijacked and used to lend credibility to the Electric Universe.

There's something bizarre and rather twisted about talking about "hijacking" Alfven's work while the mainstream misuses his MHD theories to promote a concept that Alfven called "pseudoscience" till the day he died. If anyone has "hijacked" Alfven's work to promote concepts that Alfven completely and specifically rejected, it's the mainstream and their misuse of MHD theory to promote "magnetic reconnection". The whole "messianic" reference is also rather ironic since it's the *mainstream* who awarded Alfven a Nobel Prize, not our little community. Not only did Dunning blow up the irony meter, his religious reference is also inappropriate and irrational since Alfven was an atheist and rejected "prophetic" cosmology models like the LCDM model. Nobody inside of our community has put Alfven on any sort of pedestal. That's called "projection".

It's also rather bizarre that Dunning waited till 11 paragraphs into his "hit piece" to even mention Alfven's name when Alfven was in fact the "father" of the "plasma cosmology" model that he's claiming to discuss. It's simply irrational to try to discuss plasma cosmology (or EU) without talking about Hannes Alfven, and without even acknowledging al the published materials that he personally wrote on the topic. Talk about weird rationalizations.

Alfvén also went too far. His tendency to break from the scientific consensus caused him to go terminally astray in some cases; notably, he rejected the Standard Model and the Big Bang in favor of a model in which the universe contains equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, called the Alfvén-Klein model. He established a prize for whomever can prove whether the star Alpha Centauri consists of matter or anti-matter.

Well I'll be damned. At least Dunning knows *something* correctly about Alfven's work even though he erroneously and irrationally claimed that no materials were ever published on the topic of plasma cosmology theory. Yes indeed Alfven's 'bang" model was driven by matter and antimatter and he proposed the idea that even parts of our current visible universe are still composed of antimatter. Kudos for Dunning getting *something* correct at least.

Today's believers in the Electric Universe describe their plasma cosmology as being founded upon this Alfvén-Klein model.

Bzzt. Most folks I've talked to are more apt to promote a static universe model of the electric universe. I certainly do. I can't completely write off all variations of expansion models, but I certainly don't describe my beliefs as being 'founded upon the Alfven-Klein" model. Again, Dunning makes overly broad and highly inaccurate accusations about the entire EU/PC community without really knowing anything about it. About the only thing about Alfven's cosmological beliefs that are consistently embraced by the EU/PC community is Alfven's application of *circuit theory* with respect to high energy events in the universe. I don't even know if Alfven's belief in the existence of large amounts of antimatter within the visible universe is accurate. Dunning seems to know almost nothing about this topic, yet he feels compelled to try to speak about the beliefs of the entirely EU/PC community as some sort of authority figure on the topic. Talk about suffering from delusions of grandeur. Sheesh. Apparently Dunning is his own messianic figure with a (false) message for the entire EU/PC community.

Yet while the believers regard Alfvén as the father of their concept, they don't seem to have any explanations for why Alfvén never made any statements that resemble their claims about how stars work, how planetary features are caused by arcing, and the other basics of their system.

Alfven personally promoted a homopolar generator solar model which was internally powered by fusion for starters. It's funny how Dunning never bothered to even mention that fact about Alfven's personal choice of solar models, yet he automatically assumed that the entire EU/PC community agrees on an externally powered anode solar model. He also falsely asserts that none of us can explain why we embrace that same solar model, even though many of us do *not* embrace Jeurgen's anode solar model in the first place. Dunning's emotional need to oversimplify every argument seems to be directly related to his own lack of knowledge of this topic Note that never has Dunning actually made *any* scientific argument to this point in the entire article. Not one. It's all been handwaves and misinformation and not once has Dunning pointed out any actual scientific or mathematical errors in Alfven's work, in Peratt's work, in Lerner's work, in Bruce's work, in Birkeland's work or anyone else for that matter.

Alfvén was indeed a contrarian to mainstream science-based cosmology, but even he was never as far gone as the Electric Universe.

I can only describe this statement as utterly irrational when it's combined with the fact that he specifically lumped "electric universe" theory and "plsama cosmology" together at the beginning of his article, *without* even acknowledging that Alfven literally wrote the very first book on 'plasma cosmology" theory. Apparently he's trying to make some distinction now between "plasma cosmology' and what Dunning refers to (now) as 'electric universe", without even explaining the specific differences that he's eluding to in the first place! That's just weird, it's irrational and it's confusing.

In what way has "Electric universe" gone too far from Alfven's work? It would be helpful if he was at least *specific* about where and how he distinguishes between Alfven's cosmology model and what he's calling 'electric universe', but as far as I can tell he simply falsely asserts things as 'facts" about the 'electric universe" belief system which seem to be nothing more than his own personal (and highly erroneous) opinions. It's not even clear that Dunning has ever read any of Alfven's work for himself, and since he never even mentions Birkeland, Bruce, Juergen's, Peratt, Lerner, Scott or anyone else by name, and erroneously claimed that no published materials support plasma cosmology theory in the first place, it's unlikely he even knows their materials even exist.

And now Dunning tries to excuse his inexcusable behavior:

One thing that I wanted to do with this episode was to lay out a number of the basic claims of the Electric Universe, and then give the science-based responses to each. As I started to put this together, it soon became clear that this task alone could consume twenty full episodes of the show. We would have to give the physics-based explanation for virtually everything in the universe, laying out the basic fundamentals for each, and the process that ultimately led to how we know what we know.

And yet he never did anything of the sort. In fact he never actually made *any* scientific argument of any kind. Dunning never cited any physics or mathematical error in any of Alfven's hundred or so published papers. In fact he didn't even acknowledge that such material existed to support plasma cosmology theory. Dunning never once made a real scientific argument in his entire article/show. It was nothing but an ad-hom laced tirade attacking windmills of his own creation. It was filled with false and misleading statements galore too.

But let's focus on that last sentence for just a minute. What do we actually "know" about the universe? 95 percent of the LCDM cosmology model amounts to nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance, not actual 'knowledge. LCDM proponents claim to 'know" that dark energy exists but recent evidence suggests that it isn't necessary to begin with. They claim to 'know" that dark matter exists *in spite* of the fact that it's failed every experimental test to date to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. They can't decide if it's made of WIMPS, SIMPS, Axions, sterile neutrinos or something else entirely. They can't explain where dark energy comes from, or explain how or why 'dark energy" violates the conservation of energy laws by remaining constant over multiple exponential increases in volume. They can't "explain" why the Hubble constant as it is estimated by SN1A data is in 5+ sigma tension with the same figure as estimated by Planck data sets. They can't actually claim to "know" much of anything about our universe other than the fact that it includes gravity and nobody disputes that fact in the first place.

And much of it would be pretty old-hat: most of us generally understand these basics — how gravity holds solar systems together, how meteors make craters, how tornados form, how black holes work. If you want the rebuttals to the Electric Universe, they're on the web, far more comprehensively laid out than I would have been able to do here.

The problem with that statement is that technically speaking, none of those issues is necessarily at odds with plasma cosmology or electric universe theory. Sure, some folks might have different views about one or more of those items, but none of them are in direct conflict with EU/PC theory. I embrace GR theory without the metaphysical kludges of the LCDM model. I embrace meteors and craters and tornados and even heavy massive objects which he's calling "black holes". Suffice to say that none of those things preclude me from embracing plasma cosmology theory over the LCMD model.

But you may be surprised that direct rebuttals are not as easy to find as you might think. The reason, says astronomer Phil Plait, is that there is:No evidence for it, tons of evidence against it, and no support mathematically or physically... That's why most astronomers ignore it.

The evidence to support EU/PC theory is overwhelming. It can be found in every observation in space, from solar wind acceleration first predicted by Kristian Birkeland, to a high temperature corona, to Birkeland currents around planets, to massive filaments connecting stars together which emit radio waves as Alfven and Peratt predicted. The math to support EU/PC theory is also overwhelming. It was first provided by Birkeland, by Bruce, by Alfven in hundreds of published papers, by Peratt in published papers and a great book that is packed with math, by Lerner, and Scott and many other authors. Essentially we have one very ignorant (of the topic of plasma cosmology) individual quoting another very ignorant (of the EU/PC topic) individual. Wow. That's apparently his "best" argument so far and it's simply and obviously false.

But when challenged with the contradicting facts, Electric Universe theorists often raise the Galileo Gambit, which points out that Galileo was persecuted for his revolutionary discoveries and he turned out to be right — therefore the Electric Universe theory (which is also persecuted) must also be right. Of course, the Galileo Gambit is logically invalid; the overwhelming majority of revolutionary and fringe claims throughout history have simply been wrong. (It's also worth pointing out that the base assumption of the Galileo Gambit is historically wrong: most other scientists were in agreement with Galileo; his only persecution came from the Church, for heresy.)

What "contradicting facts"? The statements made by Dunning (and Plait) are simply and absurdly false. They aren't facts, they're ignorant nonsense. There's *plenty* of math to support EU/PC theory starting as far back as Birkeland and Alfven. Dunning hasn't provided any "contradicting facts", he's provided his own "contradicting statements" that are self conflicted and simply false assertions from start to finish.

I also wouldn't point to Galileo. I'd point to Aristarchus of Samos who first proposed a heliocentric solar model and who was ridiculed and ignored for 18 centuries before astronomers finally admitted that Ptolemy was wrong. They then promptly gave the credit for heliocentrism to the wrong guy because they were too ashamed to admit to being ignorant cretins for 18 centuries! Worse yet astronomers try to blame their own historical rejection of heliocentrism on the so called "Catholic Church" even though Aristarchus predated Jesus by *centuries*. Sheesh. Talk about irrational nonsense. Astronomers have a long and proven track record of ignoring the right concept for centuries and then trying to blame their own sins on someone else.

So how does a fringe idea like this one, for which disproving information is so easily available, rise and grow into a vibrant community of smart, curious, knowledgeable, intelligent people? When such people encounter a fascinating system like the universe, they typically want to understand it.

Well, Dunning never actually provided any "disproving information". All he actually proved is that he knows almost nothing at all about the entire plasma cosmology topic, including it's mathematical support and it's observational support. He is right about one thing though, we all share a common desire to actually 'understand" the universe and the LCDM model amounts to nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance so it simply doesn't cut it for us. That's about the the only thing he actually got right. We are a vibrant, smart, curious, knowledgeable and intelligent group that's seeking real empirical answers rather than metaphysical nonsense.

Some, who lack a deep exposure to physics (as do most of us), come up with their own explanation that seems to make sense to them.

Here I think that Dunning simply projects his own ignorance of physics on everyone. He's obviously never had the scientific curiosity and intellectual integrity to study plasma cosmology theory from published papers and books, so he "imagines" his lack of understanding is common. It's not common, at least not within the plasma cosmology community. I'm afraid that Biian Dunning suffers from his own psychological disorder. He imagines himself to be some kind of great Messianic "expert" on a topic that he clearly knows almost nothing about.

Others may follow the familiar argument from ignorance, which holds that I don't understand something, therefore nobody understands it, therefore anything I suggest is just as valid as anything else.

Well, that may be true in the sense that astronomy really has no actual "knowledge" to offer anyone, so even a limited cosmology model which is based on pure empirical physics is better than nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance.

Those inclined toward conspiracy theories are attracted by the idea that here is another mainstream dogma that brave outsiders are finally disassembling to reveal a hidden truth.

Perhaps so, but again it's hard to see this process as some grand conspiracy when the mainstream freely admits that they don't know what most of the universe is made of, and they keep blowing their own model out of the water in published paper after published paper. It is easy enough to see the LCDM model as a form of "dogma", metaphysical dogma that is perpetuated for the most part by ignorance of alternative cosmology models. Most of us simply have no interest in metaphysical dogma. That part is probably somewhat true. We are seeking "scientific truth", though it doesn't seem to be very "hidden" from my vantage point. That million degree corona certainly isn't "hidden".

Together, such psychological processes lead to a diverse group of people who have formed their own alternative field of science. They feed on one another's ideas and develop the concept into the deep, comprehensive, and richly detailed narrative that is the Electric Universe theory. The more actual astronomers continue to ignore them, the firmer grows their belief that they're right, that their movement is growing, and that soon it will become widely accepted.

Actually the more that folks like Dunning continue to *misrepresent* our beliefs the more widely they become accepted by those who bother to actually read what Birkeland wrote for themselves, and what Alfven wrote and what Peratt wrote, etc. It's not the process of ignoring us that drives people into our community, it's the fact that astronomers and folks like Dunning don't do their homework on the topic and willfully and ignorantly misrepresent their published paeprs that drive people away from the LCDM model in droves. So long as the LCDM model is based on 95 percent placeholder terms for ignorance and it's proponents know even *less* about EU/PC theory than they know about LCDM, it's going to cause our community to grow.

Maybe you like: Supernovas, Neutron Stars and Black Holes "Break the Rules"

✰* Revealed At Last: Ancient Invention Generates Energy-On-Demand

✔ Nikola Tesla’s method of magnifying electric power by neutralizing the magnetic counter-forces in an electric generator

Generates Energy-On-Demand: Easy Power Plan Will Change Our World Forever

✔ Currents are 180 out of phase with each other, Lenz's law naturally is broken

✔ Principle of Resonance to achieve Overunity
✔ Generate generators without rotating motion, but based on the principle of rotating magnets. Because magnetism varies based on electronic circuit design: coils, capacitors, Negative resistance, etc.The change of magnetism does not require the rotation of the magnet.