So was treated my attempt to comment on a recent article on Principia-Scientific. The article is about pulsars, a topic I know something about, as I used to lecture on the standard view ( dead stars spinning ), and through hard-won efforts changed my mind to a more electrical view, see for example the electric circuit model of pulsars by Peratt & Healy.
The recent Principia article is here
My attempted comment,
These are exciting observations.
Yet, as a practicing astronomer, I disagree with a few aspects of the article. First, these objects are dead stars exactly as a butterfly is a dead caterpillar.
Second, I do not appreciate the rigid certainty about the "spinning dead star" model. This is one model for pulsars. There are other models which, in my opinion, explain some of the data better, such as the electrical circuit model of Peratt & Healy. I am guessing that who ever wrote this article called up a couple of professors at major universities whose funding depends upon being right instead of upon asking questions.
Third, whoever wrote the article, how about challenging yourself and making a little matrix of data which is better explained by several different models for pulsars. Especially on a site like Principia-Scientific. Give us the results of your homework.
I do not know when I became a forbidden voice on PS. I have even been reviewed/published on Principia-Scientific, here. Of course there is some AI underneath this. My published works on the web have all been scraped, and the algorithm-de-jure Has binned me with the deplorables.
In 1632, in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo Galilei helped bring down the Aristotelian system by arguing that there was no difference between the celestial and the elemental (sublunar) parts of the universe, i.e., that the celestial bodies and the Earth were made of the same matter.
More than three decades before that, in 1600, in his On the Magnet, William Gilbert argued that the magnetism of the Earth was somehow related to its diurnal rotation and its position in the universe.
In the nineteenth century, it was discovered that there is no magnetism without electrical currents.
And here we are in the twenty-first century, and it is still argued that there are no celestial electrical currents.
Historically, they herd us to the edge andthen they push us over. I marvel that we exist who, ala McGilchrist, are looking in more directions to more distant horizons then the poor folk who cannot or willnot attend evidence contrary to their clan gang or herd beliefs.
Your voice must be rather threatening to them given that you wash their sacred stories into oblivion with a brief shower of well spoken, obvious falsifiers... hard on the ego and one's position at the trough . Long and loudly may you carry on... thank you and please stay in touch with those