Cosmology Views

Thunderbolts Is Going Slightly Off Course

I lead with a headline which might be disturbing. It is only my opinion but I can justify it.

I just self-published 2 books. The first tore down popular cosmology by explaining all its many mistakes.

There is no big bang, no black hole, no dark matter, no dark energy, no expansion, no neutron star, no relativity, wrong quasar.

The second one reviewed both the results of the first book and several alternatives to fix this mess.
In the process, I propose:
a) how to fix all the data when adjusting distances for the correct red shift value,
b) the correct Son or star (from Robitaille),
c) the correct spiral galaxy mdel (from Scott),
d) the correct quasar (from me).
I frequently post to EUT so of course, I started with EU to compare to.
When taking its entirety,  objectively, Thunderbolts has several wrong assumptions which might be causing its progress into making several mistakes. That justifies me calling it "going off slightly course."

The 3 significant errors:
1) wrong red shift assumption
2) wrong overall solar model.
3) wrong quasar model.

1 & 3 are related.

Arp lead Thunderbolts astray. Red shifts are not an indicator of a difference in age. I heard Thornhill remark M31 is blue shifted because it is younger. That is a mistake.
I have explained red shifts in a number of posts. It is impossible to relate a red or blue shift from motions of atoms to an age of anything.
2 was a revelation to me.
Thunderbolts Project has people working on the Sun separately, in 2 contexts, either inside or outside. Thunderbolts has apparently failed to recognize their convergence.
I heard Thornhill remark something about: Robitaille's solar core is wrong. Robitaille has explained the Sun from the inside to outside.Thornhill apparently disagrees with the "inside" conclusion.

SAFIRE investigated only the outside, where transmutations occur.

It is my opinion, Robitaille was so thorough he got everything right, including a tie-in with SAFIRE in his photosphere explanation.
The poblem arises for Thunderbolts when it is misunderstanding the SAFIRE results.

SAFIRE demonstrated transmutation can occur on the photosphere, the solar surface.
I hear Thornhill has remarked about the electrical discharges on the surface and those suggest those discharges drive the Sun and its surface temperature.
I recall this proposed scenario:
With more or less electrical stress the Sun can possibly expand to satisfy the external electrical demands. There is even the proposal where excessive electrical stress can result in the star fissioning in half. If a star with its sequential layers fissions, then it must do it internally. A supernova involves the ejection of the outer layers but the solid core probably remains intact.

This suggests binary or trinary stars must form as that set, not as one which splits.

If I follow it correctly, this external star model has problems. The Sun is not driven externally by electrical discharges on its surface, no matter how frequent or intense. It is ridiculous to explain a high surface temperature with such an external mechanism. it is driven internally by the external axial solar electrical current to heat the core, as proposed by both Alfven and Donald Scott. Robitaille describes how the Sun we observe is driven by its internal cycles. The photosphere, which is the bottom of the SAFIRE context, emits high temperature thermal radiation as it cools.

SAFIRE explained where the mix of elements comes from. it did NOT explain where the observed surface temperature comes from.
Robitaille offered that explanation, not SAFIRE.

Apparently Thornhill believes electrical discharges and sun spots can generate the energy to somehow heat the photosphere surface layer below this electrical activity in the chromosphere. This is a wrong-way energy transfer.
Alfven had an assumption the Sun must have a solid core of heavy metallic elements.
Robitaille concluded the solar core is solid metallic hydrogen, or more simply it is only densely packed protons and electrons. Thornhill has apparently failed to accept Alfven was right about the input current but wrong about the Solar core.

This is similar to failing to see Arp was right sometimes but also wrong on other things. Therefore with Thornhill as the chief scientist, Thunderbolts is "slightly off course" with some crucial behaviors for the electric universe cosmology.
Certainly, Thunderbolts has many confirmed predictions. In my opinion, the few mistakes should be fixed because they detract from those successes.
I have no vested interest in a particular cosmology. I am just seeking a "best we can do" cosmology, wherever that one can be found.
I did a brief review of plasma cosmology and it seems they still assume the solar fusion model is correct. That suggests they are off course as well. It seems they also ignore Velikovsky so that remains a distinction between the 2 cosmologies.

When reviewing the alternatives, Robitaille seems to have everything right, from explaining the CMB, and to explaining stars.

I wrote 2 books and I feel by the end, I found a best choice for a new cosmology in a derivation from most of the apparent current path of Thunderbolts. Hopefully, Thunderbolts can recognize its few mistakes and get back on a better course.

If anyone is interested enough in the complete story of how I see a new cosmology, somewhat based on EU, Amazon can print on demand my 2 paperbacks, Observing Our Universe, and Cosmology Transition, with David Michalets as their author.

I can accept every criticism. I might be wrong about any number of conclusions.

However, I expect I can offer a better story than those I am hearing from all the other available sources.