Quote:
Originally Posted by VanderL
I count myself as one of the "EU gang" and I never claimed "everything about physics to be wrong". I don't mind it when you want to state that EU is not a theory (yet, imo), or lacking experimental evidence (and there are areas where this isn't true), but don't characterise the EU gang as declaring everything about physics to be wrong.
I don't know how off-topic we are in this thread, but what facts about binary pulsars disproves the EU concept of electrically powered stars?
Cheers.
|
The problem is that there is no single "EU" theory. There are types like Thornhill who basically feel that gravity, as usually defined, does not exist. Rather it is an EM effect. It's to this school that my question about binary pulsars is directed.
As to the electric sun, don't get me started. That's a subject for another thread, and I know there have been several. Let's just start by repeating Tusenfem's question in this post. Where is the energy coming from that keeps the sun shining. Provide us with the current source if there is one and quantitatively explain the sun's spectrum, power output as well as the standard solar model does. Even better, explain where in an electric sun model where solar neutrinos come from and provide a quantitiatve comparison with the observed flux that matches the observed flux as well or better than the standard solar model.
OK, I got started. Sorry.
__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin
"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli
|