Page 1 of 1
Posted on October 1 at 11:51 a.m.
@Eckermann. Rob Knop has not read much about Plasma Cosmology. His first argument is based on "plasma cosmology is motivated by people who just want to be different". The is a stunning statement. Hannes Alfven, the father of plasma cosmology, based his motivation on empirical evidence that ultimately led to him being awarded the Nobel Prize in physic for his work on MHD in astrophysics.
His second argument is that "we're able to explain all the orbits in the solar system with a straightforward application of gravity". And plasma cosmology agrees, as it says nothing on the orbits of planet. Electromagnetic fields affects plasma, dust and small grains, and states that gravity is more important for anything larger than a pebble.
Knop chooses to criticize a blog website, rather than many of the peer reviewed papers on the subject. If this is the best standard of scholarship that Knop can muster, then I have to question where Eckermann see lucidity.
Finally knop resort to name calling (ie Crackpottery). While none of my criticisms are consistent with, or prove plasma cosmology, Tam Hunt and Tim Eastman should be congratulated on a factual article, calling for science and evidence to be the final arbiter, and this alone means that it deserves a voice.
On Is Gravity the Whole Story?