Venom? I called a bunch of crackpots, "crackpots", what's venomous about that? I see no reason to suffer fools gracefully, and I don't (even on those rare occasions where I am one myself). I also see no reason to assume that the words "open minded" and "gullible" should be considered synonymous. It is of no consequence that someone holds a different opinion than mine, and I am a champion of original thinking. But opinion is not the issue here.
It is a matter of fact, and not opinion, that the electric universe cosmology has already been proven false, to the extent that anything is proven in the empirical sciences, where the standard of "proof" is somewhat different than it is in formal mathematics. It is a matter of fact, and not opinion, that the electric cosmos cosmology strongly violates chapter & verse of well known, fundamental principles of physics. Is it not passing strange that somebody with a bachelors degree in physics, and somebody with a PhD in electrical engineering, should support a hypothesis that grossly violates even freshman level physics? Is this really an example of valuable, original thinking?
Science is not so much a matter of
what you know, as it is a matter of
how you know it. While there is no single, mythical, "scientific method", there is a "scientific attitude", which is at it's heart, an
honest investigation of the natural universe, as unfettered as possible by preconception. People cannot function with no preconceptions at all, but they can do a good job with a minimal set. All science is based on this one fundamental principle of honesty, which is why scientists are ruthless in their response to those found falsifying data, or plagerizing other peoples work.
There is no honesty in the electric cosmos, it is dominated by preconception. You can see this clearly in the way they practice "science by exegesis", using literary techniques, and criticizing phrases & passages. But when they try to follow the form of "science", suggesting "scientific" explanations, like the simple circuit model for a solar flare, they can't even make their own model physically consistent with their own explanantion! When do you finally decide that enough is enough? How many gross, simple factual errors do you think are OK, before you are willing to call something "stupid"? I actually have a pretty decent level of tolerance for error based on ignorance, but errors based on a fundamental dishonesty are intolerable when peddled as "science". At its core, the electric cosmos is based on dishonesty, not science, and you cannot ever tolerate that.
I was far kinder to the electric cosmos folks than they rightly deserve, but then I am the forgiving type. Now, if you want to see somebody who is really loaded for bear on this topic, you should check out the writings, speakings, post cards, phone calls, and other late night musings of Leroy Ellenberger, former confidant to Velikovsky himself, and now an evangelical anti-Velikovskian (
Velikovsky Still Colliding,
An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions). His opinion of Thornhill cannot be printed in any public medium, and I dare say Thornhill feels the same way.