The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmology

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed May 24, 2017 3:19 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=51

SelfSim: Oh .. and I should add that his anti-LIGO campaign has earned him yet another ban for 'argumentative demeanour' when he decided to attempt to publish his rant at an apparently defunct(?) 'astronomyforum.net' (See my post here).


All that action demonstrated is that the "industry" of "astronomy" is *way* too delicate to have an open and honest scientific discussion on anything. Holy cow. The fact you believe that skepticism is a bad thing simply demonstrates how little you really understand about science. The fact you have to outright ban all EU/PC proponents from various boards shows just how weak your beliefs system really is. Fear and force are your last resort.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu May 25, 2017 4:46 am

The Standard Model has many holes and blank spots. For reasons of money, politics and control, the standard model fills these holes with belief based left over from older days as well as with newer, experimental theories. Until The Electric Universe, or others, produce scientifically robust alternatives to the obvious place holders and speculations in the standard model, calling out its weaknesses is a waste of time and energy. Bengt Nyman. http://www.dipole.se
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu May 25, 2017 11:01 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:The Standard Model has many holes and blank spots. For reasons of money, politics and control, the standard model fills these holes with belief based left over from older days as well as with newer, experimental theories. Until The Electric Universe, or others, produce scientifically robust alternatives to the obvious place holders and speculations in the standard model, calling out its weaknesses is a waste of time and energy. Bengt Nyman. http://www.dipole.se


Plasma and ordinary inelastic scattering are already robust empirical alternatives to their placeholder terms for human ignorance, and at least 4 different supernatural elements of LCDM.

It may be a waste of energy to point out the problems in the LCDM model as it relates to changing mainstream opinions, but I don't think it's a waste of effort to attempt to educate the public to not only the empirical alternatives to LCDM, but also to educate them about the specific reasons that we *need* alternatives to LCDM.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby BeAChooser » Thu May 25, 2017 11:40 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:Until The Electric Universe, or others, produce scientifically robust alternatives to the obvious place holders and speculations in the standard model, calling out its weaknesses is a waste of time and energy.


The mainstream astrophysics community doesn't act at all like black holes, dark matter, inflation, dark energy, and dozens of other gnomes are "place holders and speculation". They act like they are "scientifically robust" … “settled science” ... when they are not. In my opinion, you ask for the impossible from the EU community when the mainstream community prevents funding to even look into EU alternatives, prevents EU articles from even being published, and refuses to debate the issues. Michael is entirely correct in complaining that the mainstream cannot handle honest debate. I've seen this myself many times. And indeed, the mainstream community is downright dishonest. Not long ago, we had visitor named Sarah Scoles who turned out to be a highly dishonest mainstream supporting physicist and science writer. She came here pretending to want to understand EU and those who believe in it, and then wrote nothing but a hit piece on it. And then when challenged about what she wrote, she simply disappeared. She refused to respond to any queries about the validity of what she wrote. No, I think the weaknesses of the standard model need to be pointed out at every opportunity and it is not a waste of time and energy. Not doing so is abandoning the battle field and surrendering to ... well ... dishonest people.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby GaryN » Thu May 25, 2017 12:16 pm

"you ask for the impossible from the EU community when the mainstream community prevents funding to even look into EU alternatives, prevents EU articles from even being published, and refuses to debate the issues."

Sounding like a conspiracy to me.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2556
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu May 25, 2017 12:49 pm

GaryN wrote:"you ask for the impossible from the EU community when the mainstream community prevents funding to even look into EU alternatives, prevents EU articles from even being published, and refuses to debate the issues."

Sounding like a conspiracy to me.


Well, if it's a conspiracy, it has to be the worst one in the history of physics because they keep blowing away their own claims in published paper after published paper.

On the other hand, with folks like Brian Koberlein and Tom Bridgman flat out *lying* about the predictions of EU/PC models on their public blogs, LIGO giving a whitewashed account of veto events in their published paper, and the mainstream publications refusing to publish a rebuttal to LIGO's discovery claims, its hard to claim that they're entirely innocent either.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu May 25, 2017 2:29 pm

Michael Mozina wrote: ... but I don't think it's a waste of effort to attempt to educate the public to ... alternatives to LCDM.

Progress in science is rarely the result of a public uprising.
The first sign of an EU accomplishment will be when LCDM accepts something similar to an EU idea, after first putting its own name on it.
Physics and cosmology are controlled by the same kind of people who run religious and political denominations.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby BeAChooser » Thu May 25, 2017 11:53 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:Well, if it's a conspiracy, it has to be the worst one in the history of physics because they keep blowing away their own claims in published paper after published paper.


But it's not the published papers that matter in keeping the mainstream meme alive and dominant. It's who controls the media, and let's face it, the folks who believe in mainstream astrophysics gnomes now control the media. Or at least the media is so lazy it no longer looks outside the mainstream meme. Sarah Scoles is an example.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby BeAChooser » Fri May 26, 2017 12:00 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:Physics and cosmology are controlled by the same kind of people who run religious and political denominations.


It's true that mainstream astrophysicists act like members of a cult. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, there was a recent article (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/26/t ... l-warming/ ) titled “The ‘Cult’ of Climate Change (née Global Warming)”. It listed a bunch of characteristics that make AGWalarmism a religious cult.  Here they are, and why I think they can also be applied to modern astrophysics:
 
**********
 
“1) Climate alarmists pretend to possess indisputable truths about the past, present, and future. From minute details of the paleoclimate to the world state 200 years in the future, alarmists know everything."
 
Now I ask you, are Big Bang proponents any different?   Aren’t they claiming to possess indisputable truths about the past, present and future?  Down to the minutest detail?  Into the state of the universe billions of years past and future?
 
"2) The alarmist movement stubbornly refuses to debate its dogma, calling it “settled science” and viciously attacking its critics. The attacks are not limited to name calling but include prohibiting scientific research that contradicts this dogma."
 
Alternative believers have a great deal of trouble getting Big Bang proponents to debate.   Big Bang proponents call their beliefs “settled science” and they viciously attack it’s critics.   And the attacks include prohibiting scientific research that contradicts Big Bang.   I don’t know if they’ve made any death threats against the doubters … but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
 
"3) The alarmist movement has a formal doctrine-setting body — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The reports and summaries by this body are considered by the alarmists to be the main source of authority on all things related to climate, energy, the biological cycle, and consequentially, everything else. The cult followers (individuals, organizations, and even governments) regularly quote these unholy texts and use them to justify their decisions."
 
What is NASA if not that doctrine setting body?
 
"4) The alarmist movement has its own priest class: taxpayer-funded impostor “climate scientists” who have no independent (of the climate alarmism) scientific achievements.’ … snip … The alarmists sincerely believe that only members of the priest class are capable of understanding and seriously discussing “climate science.” … snip … It is worth noting that this priest class was appointed by politicians (mostly from developing countries) and is completely disconnected from the eminent scientists who founded climate change research at the peak of their scientific careers and produced the most results prior to 1985. All the eminent scientists who have publicly spoken on the topic since the early 1990s strongly opposed climate alarmism and were attacked or defamed by the alarmists."
 
That’s exactly the situation with regards to the Big Bang “traditional physics” community.   Astrophysicists are taxpayer funded.  They have no independent achievements.   Big Bang proponents believe only astrophysicists are capable of understanding what we see out there in the universe.   Electrical engineers and plasma scientists need not apply.  Even Nobel award winning ones. The astrophysicists the mainstream cites regarding plasma and magnetic fields are completely disconnected from the eminent scientists who founded those disciplines.   All those who speak out opposing the Big Bang gnomes have been attacked or defamed.
 
"5) The climate change cult appears to worship the computer models that its shamans built with their own hands — literally man-made idols. Needless to say, much of the content of IPCC’s texts comes from these computer models."
 
Ditto in Big Bang, Black Hole, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc cosmology.  Computer models are the only thing they have.  Observations haven't proven a thing nor corroborated their computer models.  
 
"6) The alarmists deny, ignore, or distort elementary scientific facts, some of which should be known even to kids"
 
Ditto with regards to Big Bang, Black Hole, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc cosmology.  How is constantly calling what’s out there "gas" and not "plasma" anything but denying, ignoring and distorting elementary scientific fact, which should be known to even kids?  Don't the school texts tell kids that what we actually see in the universe is 99.999% plasma?   Yes, they do.
 
"7) The alarmists appeal to medieval science errors."
 
Isn’t there something medieval about scientists insisting the universe had a beginning?   After all, the CHURCH, one of the biggest institutions to come out of the medieval period is a big supporter of the Big Bang theory because it too believes in a moment of creation rather than continuous creation and no end either way to the universe.  It’s even formally endorsed Big Bang, just like it now has AGW.
 
"8) The alarmists have created and spread climate mythology, sometimes intentionally modeled on archaic misbeliefs that many alarmists attributed to religion."
 
Aren’t all the gnomes of Big Bang cosmology (inflation, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, frozen magnetic fields, etc, etc, etc) essentially mythologies that have been created out of whole cloth much like demons and angels and rising sea levels?
 
"9) Like an established religion, the climate change cult has its own “start of the time”—usually 1880 (sometimes the 1880s), which is allegedly the beginning of instrumental temperature records."
 
Isn’t the start date for the Big Bang cult when instruments recorded objects whose interpreted motions and distances  seemed to suggest an origin back in the distant past ... some 13.8 billion years ago ... in a single point? Doesn’t the presumption of a single point depend on assumptions about red shift that now are accepted as gospel even though science suggests other possibilities?
 
"10) Climate change cult has its own eschatology—calamities, catastrophes, and the end of the world caused by global warming."
 
Big Bang cosmologists have some people fearing the creation of black holes in their super colliders.  What could be a worse catastrophe?  Others fear the creation of a new universe in those same machines.  And then inherent in the Big Bang Theory is the ultimate death of the universe … either the Big Crunch or the Big Freeze.  What could be more "eschatological"?
 
"11) The climate change cult calls its dogma science but fails to make any scientific (i.e., non-trivial and testable) statements. For example, “Climate change is real” is a trivial statement. The statements about temperatures in 2100 are not practically testable. When alarmists were making testable statements (such as the infamous 1988 James Hansen testimony before Congress and early IPCC reports), they were proven to be incorrect."
 
Now read this:  The Big Bang cult calls its dogma science but fails to make any scientific (i.e., non-trivial and testable) statements. For example, “Big Bang is real” is a trivial statement. The statements about string theory are not practically testable. When alarmists were making testable statements (such as claiming the existence of dark matter), they were proven to be incorrect.   See what I mean?  The Big Bang Cosmology has become just as much a religious cult as AGWalarmism.
 
"12) The climate change cult seeks and actually exerts control over governments.  To add to the above, the climate change cult has survived multiple exposures of its frauds—something that a normal fraud cannot survive. Nevertheless, many cults involve fraud, and even true believers are not against profiting from their position in their cult. The climate change cult has been elevated by the Obama administration into state religion. Both the White House and NASA appear to have converted to this cult."
 
Big Bang cosmologists certainly seek and exert control over governments.   How else have they gotten the governments of the world to shell out the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars that have gone into costly instrument after costly instrument … all seeking to prove the existence of the countless gnomes that the astrophysicists have created out of whole cloth?
 
Certainly the multiple exposures of Big Bang frauds … like denying the plasma and filamentary nature of the universe … and failing to find proof of their many gnomes … hasn’t seemed to hurt Big Bang Cosmologists so far.   The money is still rolling in because Big Bang has become a “state religion” and it helps that the mainstream press is on board too … along with the White House and NASA.    And perhaps one reason Big Bang proponents refuse to engage plasma/electric universe proponents in honest debate now is their fear that the massive fraud might be exposed to the public and then the public would revolt against all three institutions in this state religion.
 
**********
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby nick c » Fri May 26, 2017 9:18 am

Here is an example relevant to the theme of this thread.
That stellar black holes are formed from supernova has been a tenet of mainstream theory/ideology.
Stellar black holes form when the center of a very massive star collapses in upon itself. This collapse also causes a supernova, or an exploding star, that blasts part of the star into space.

Now an observation has cast doubt on this as a giant star has seemingly blinked out of existence and formed (according to Astronomers) a black hole without an expected supernova explosion.

It is amazing how the theory can be made to bend to fit any sort of information, even if it outright contradicts an expectation of the theory.
Formation of a Black Hole in the Dark
We show that the black hole in the x-ray binary Cygnus X-1 was formed in
situ and did not receive an energetic trigger from a nearby supernova.
[....]
The observations
suggest that high-mass stellar black holes may form promptly, when massive
stars disappear silently.



What is the experimentum crucis for Black Hole theory?
There does not seem to be one.
This is not Science.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2268
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri May 26, 2017 1:18 pm

BeAChooser wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:But it's not the published papers that matter in keeping the mainstream meme alive and dominant. It's who controls the media, and let's face it, the folks who believe in mainstream astrophysics gnomes now control the media. Or at least the media is so lazy it no longer looks outside the mainstream meme. Sarah Scoles is an example.


Well, I agree that there are a few EU/PC "haters", like Sara Scoles, Brian Koberlein and Tom Bridgman who intentionally and unethically go out of their way to spread *disinformation* about EU/PC theory around the internet. I would not however assume that a handful of bad apples is necessarily indicative of the industry as a whole, particularly as it relates to the intentional misrepresentation of EU/PC theory. In fact I've had some really wonderful conversations over the years at various forums with professional astronomers who were very pleasant to converse with, even if they didn't agree with my cosmology beliefs.

In terms of controlling dissent on mainstream astronomy websites, I've never even seen a more draconian rule system than the one that is still being used at Cosmoquest (formerly Bad Astronomy). They literally hold witch trials and burn their heretics at the stake in their "against the mainstream" forum. They even close all "against the mainstream" threads after just 30 days. That is simply bizarre and unethical behavior that is obviously driven by fear, intimidation and irrational emotional nonsense.

In terms of the papers which the mainstream chooses not to publish, I'd say that they tend to control the content of mainstream astronomy magazines with the same type of fear, intimidation and brute force methods they use on the internet. That's certainly true of my last LIGO paper. APJ Letters insisted to me that they don't even publish "rebuttals" to papers which they have peer reviewed. :(

In terms of the papers which they *do* choose to publish in mainstream publications however, at least some of those papers tend to undermine their own claims. They do seem to be reasonably honest in that respect, but then again, I don't know how exactly one might choose to "spin" or just fail to print the results of a bunch of failed lab tests of "cold dark matter" theory. I suppose that they simply *have* to print some of that material, but not necessarily all the papers that reveal the various and numerous mass estimation technique problems in that 2006 bullet cluster lensing study.

One thing that is abundantly clear however, on various forums (particularly their own forums) the haters (not necessarily all astronomers) tend to rely very heavily upon attacking the messenger debate tactics with their incessant use of ad-homs. The number of ad homs and the intensity of the attack mentality seems to be directly related to how well they're doing in the debate. It's ultimately a tactic that is driven by their frustration of being unable to scientifically defend their own beliefs, or to find any *real* (as opposed to completely fabricated) errors with EU/PC theory.

I don't think it's fair or realistic to blame the whole "media" for the fact that mainstream astronomers are unwilling to discuss other theories (besides their own) with reporters, or for their failure to mention that other scientific possibilities could apply. Sara is the exception rather than the rule IMO. It does suck that Scoles chose to present the EU/PC material in such an unfair and unprofessional manner, but I wouldn't blame the whole of the media for her personal sins.

At least part of my motivation for debating EU/PC on the internet is to bring more awareness to EU/PC theory among reporters and within the media, and to encourage some honest public dialog on cosmology theory.

I actually do think that it's possible that we might see a grass roots uprising if the mainstream continues to ride their denial-go-round for too long. Their theory looks pretty tattered, torn and worn out after the revelations of the past last decade. I have no problem convincing electrical engineers of the value of EU/PC theory. I can't see this charade lasting too much longer, particularly when they can't defend any of their nonsense in a real scientific debate and all their test results are negative. People will start to notice and they will start to become hostile toward their claims. When that happens, they'll be nowhere to hide. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

RC is the sleaziest coward on the internet.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:54 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=1028

This is the type of response that gives astronomy a bad name. It also demonstrates that Reality Check is the single sleaziest poster on the internet, and worse yet, he's a two bit coward who hides behind an autonomous handle while doing it. Regardless of the topic in astronomy that he's discussing or the person that he's discussing it with, RC goes out of his way to attack the *individual* with loaded language galore, rather than just sticking to the topic. He does it to everyone, and the fact that the mainstream allows him to continue such sleazy behavior is a perfect example of the fact that they simply cannot handle an honest scientific debate on various topics. It's all about personal attack, and playing "kill the messenger".

Their posts, and RC's posts in particular are always loaded with lots of personal attack terms like "crank, crackpot, delusion, ignorance, fantasy, lie", yada, yada, yada, and they do nothing about that bad behavior because he's doing exactly what they want him to do, namely attacking the *person* rather than discussing with the topic itself. What a scumbag.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Dogma

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:17 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=1040

20 June 2017 jeffreyw: The usual delusion of astronomy being dogma.


Well, let's see who's actually "delusional, shall we?

https://www.google.com/search?q=dogma&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

dog·ma
ˈdôɡmə/
noun
noun: dogma; plural noun: dogmas

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.


So the "authority" in the case of LCDM theory is claiming that it is "incontrovertibly true" that A) space expansion occurs in nature, and B) that it's a 'possible cause" of photon redshift. If we do not accept these two basic assumptions as being incontrovertibly true, then the whole space expansion claim falls apart. Nothing like photon redshift being caused by space expansion can be demonstrated in a lab, or anywhere else. It's a pure "act of faith" on the part of the believer. Moving *objects* and inelastic scattering can be shown in the lab to cause photon redshift, but space expansion is pure dogma on a stick.

Note that the physical legitimacy of GR theory is not dependent upon the belief that space expansion *must* occur in nature even if that form of dogma can be stuffed it into a GR formula just like the "dark energy" dogma can be stuffed into a GR formula, and the "dark matter" dogma can be stuffed into a GR formula.

The "authority" also claims that "space acceleration" is possible and can also have some kind of tangible effect on photons. Furthermore the dogma of LCDM claims that the "cause" of space acceleration is called "dark energy". Again, these points of dogma must be taken as incontrovertibly true claims based on "authority" alone. Again, it's pure *dogma, and a pure act of faith* on the part of the "believer" because nothing like that ever occurs in the lab either.

Inflation theory is *dogma* as well because the sheer existence of inflation has to be accepted as an incontrovertibly true assumption and like all mainstream dogma it also fails to show up in the lab, or have any tangible effect on anything in a lab.

Exotic forms of matter must also be accepted as "dogma", lest all the LCDM nucleosynthesis and BOA "predictions" fall apart, and in spite of billions of dollars of their own "tests" which show no evidence of any such thing!

Even the five percent of plasma that the authorities add to LCDM is mostly modeled on a form of "pseudoscience' according to the author of MHD theory. Magnetic reconnection has to be assumed to be "incontrovertibly true" in spite of the fact that the typical and classic experiments on "reconnection' all begin and end with an electric field and in spite of the fact that reconnection theory is made mathematically obsolete and irrelevant in all current carrying environments by Alfven's own double layer paper. Even *that* claim is a form of pure dogma.

In short, *everything*, literally ever single thing about LCDM is based upon pure "dogma", not real physics that actually works in the lab.

Compare and contrast that metaphysical dogma with Birkeland's working solar model:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

That's what real *working* physics looks like and nothing about that working model is based upon "dogma". Reality Check needs a reality check. He doesn't even understand the difference between working physics and pure dogma, so the "delusions" which RC talks about are purely his and his alone. His delusions are based on pure denial.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Extreme verbal abuse......

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:29 am

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=3458

I thought this post at ISF from earlier this week clearly illustrates the verbally abusive nature of the mainstream, and the incredible irony of their strategy.

Reality Check is pretty much the poster child for everything that is wrong with the mainstream. Like any typical verbally abusive hater, he hides behind an anonymous handle while dishing out his public hate. Regardless of the topic, and regardless of the person that he's talking with, every single post of RC includes repetitious use of verbally abusive terms, and personal attack terms like "lie", "deluded", "ignorant", crackpot, cult, yada, yada, yada.

The irony of course is that this is the very same individual who kept asserting over at ISF/JREF that electrical discharges in plasma were "impossible". This is the same guy that for over five years has steadfastly *refused* to provide us with his missing math formula to describe a supposed non-zero "rate" of reconnection in Clinger's vacuum contraption too. RC has blatantly, willfully and intentionally misrepresented the statements of Dungey, Bruce, Peratt, myself and anyone and everyone else that was ever associated with EU/PC theory too. This is the same guy that tried to defend Brian Koberlein's pathological lies about EU/PC solar models predicting 'no neutrinos', maybe because RC is simply a sock puppet of Koberlein?

For all his accusations about others telling "lies", his sig-line is simply hysterical:

NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation)


RC includes links to the now infamous Bullet Cluster study which only ever "proved" that the mainstream's baryonic mass estimates were a huge 'lie' they told in 2006 as numerous later studies have demonstrated over and over and over again.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

Not only were their baryonic mass estimates shown to be a huge "lie" in 2006, as were their claims about finding "proof" of dark matter, their "predictions" about 'dark matter' in the lab have all been "lies" and complete BS. Not only did they lie about their mass estimation techniques being reliable, they lied some more when they tried to justify their numerous exotic matter snipe hunts based on cosmological observations which never actually supported their claims in the first place!

RC's use of the term "cult" is simply hysterical in terms of the irony overload factor. EU/PC theory does not require any sort of "faith" at all. All of it's physical concepts are based on pure empirically demonstrated processes and demonstrated cause/effect relationships in the lab. Right or wrong, all of the core tenets of the ideas we put forth can be tested in a lab.

Meanwhile LCDM theory requires blind allegiance, and blind faith in the existence of *four* different supernatural constructs, including inflation, space expansion, mythical forms of matter and mythical forms of energy.

Whereas the EU/PC community entertains multiple solar model options and we publicly acknowledge our ignorance as to the age and the origins of the universe, LCDM proponents claim to know the exact composition of stars, and the exact processes that led to the "creation" (of all matter) of the universe down to last few milliseconds, from something the size of a "primordial atom", to within a hundred million years. Their whole supernatural dogma package is so tightly interwoven that it's impossible to remove or reject even one of their four supernatural constructs without destroying their entire model too. LCDM is a supernatural house of cards! That's exactly why they can't and won't update their flawed baryonic mass estimates even a few percentage points, even though they are hugely flawed, and in spite of all their lab failures to find exotic matter.

The mainstream doesn't bust reality check's chops for his outrageous hater behavior. Hell no. They *encourage* it and they engage in the same hater behaviors. RC is certainly the 'worst of the worst' in terms of his complete lack of ethics, but they all do it. They all resort to the attacking the *person* rather than sticking to the topic because they don't have an empirical leg to stand on. Even their mathematical models related to plasma are based upon pure *pseudoscience* according to the author of MHD theory. Literally every single belief that is associated with LCDM is either a blind 'act of faith' in placeholder terms for human ignorance, or pure pseudoscience on a stick. Talk about cult-like beliefs and methods.

Sheesh.

And the mainstream wonders why their credibility is going to hell in a handbasket......
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Tue Jul 11, 2017 12:55 pm

Hi Michael,
If the Electric Universe, Wallace Thornhill, you and others would want to contribute to improving the science of physics and cosmology, you would help me promoting the Coulomb Dipole Theory.
Bengt Nyman
http://www.dipole.se
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest