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

The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmology

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon May 01, 2017 8:10 pm

One thing that has become *painfully* clear while debating astronomy topics on the internet over the past decade is that the mainstream simply cannot handle an honest scientific debate on cosmology theory, or solar physics theory. They tend to rely upon pure disinformation and blatant lies like Brian Koberlein and Tom Bridgman, or they have to resort to pure ad hom in debate. There is never any empirical substance to be found in any of their arguments.

Their inability to handle an honest scientific debate is mostly the result of the fact that they are holding a belief system that is almost entirely based upon impotent in the lab supernatural entities, and the rest of it is pure pseudoscience on a stick. It's not exactly an "easy" belief system to publicly defend in the first place. It's not like I'm all that smart, but it's not like I really have to be either. :)

I think their inability to handle a real scientific debate also has to do with the fact that there's only about 8000 astrophysicists worldwide, and they're used to a classroom setting, or a work environment where nobody really questions the basic dogma. If you want to pass a class in astronomy, and you want employment in the industry, you learn to recite the mainstream dogma. You don't question their claims too much, lest the whole thing start to sound ridiculous, or you lose your job or you fail your class. It's an inbred supernatural solution oriented cult with a fear based command and control system. That heavy handed control system doesn't work well in a real debate on the internet, particularly when they try to leave the comfort of their heavy handed and heavily moderated boards. :)

Their lack of education in terms of any understanding of alternative ideas is also a significant problem for them in debate. Most of them still don't know much about Birkeland's work or Alfven's work or Peratt's work.

The fact that the mainstream simply ignored the role of inelastic scattering in plasma says volumes about the utterly absurd nature of their basic cosmology beliefs. Instead of embracing empirical physical solutions to observations in space based on observations from laboratory plasma experiments, they created three supernatural entities to try to "fix" their obvious 'rookie" mistake! Hoy Vey.

The whole dark matter of the gaps claim has become a *complete* fiasco after all the very expensive negative results from LHC, LUX, Pandax, the electron roundness tests, etc, etc, etc. Even though the baryonic mass estimates that were used in that now infamous 2006 lensing paper on dark matter were shown to be flawed in numerous ways, they're limited by their own dogma as to how much they can even accommodate any serious modification of the percentage of exotic matter, so they simply have to rely upon pure denial on that topic.

It's definitely not an easy time to be a public LCDM proponent. :)

I'd almost feel sorry for them if they weren't so draconian in their methods on their own boards. The witch trial forum (against the mainstream forum) at Cosmoquest best exemplifies their inability to handle any serious debate, and it's only going to get worse over time. They'll be burning heretics and witches for a long time because they simply refuse to embrace empirical physics, and their supernatural claims just don't make any sense.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
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 » Mon May 01, 2017 10:27 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:One thing that has become *painfully* clear while debating astronomy topics on the internet over the past decade is that the mainstream simply cannot handle an honest scientific debate on cosmology theory, or solar physics theory. They tend to rely upon pure disinformation and blatant lies like Brian Koberlein and Tom Bridgman, or they have to resort to pure ad hom in debate. There is never any empirical substance to be found in any of their arguments.

Their inability to handle an honest scientific debate is mostly the result of the fact that they are holding a belief system that is almost entirely based upon impotent in the lab supernatural entities, and the rest of it is pure pseudoscience on a stick. It's not exactly an "easy" belief system to publicly defend in the first place. It's not like I'm all that smart, but it's not like I really have to be either. :)

I think their inability to handle a real scientific debate also has to do with the fact that there's only about 8000 astrophysicists worldwide, and they're used to a classroom setting, or a work environment where nobody really questions the basic dogma. If you want to pass a class in astronomy, and you want employment in the industry, you learn to recite the mainstream dogma. You don't question their claims too much, lest the whole thing start to sound ridiculous, or you lose your job or you fail your class. It's an inbred supernatural solution oriented cult with a fear based command and control system. That heavy handed control system doesn't work well in a real debate on the internet, particularly when they try to leave the comfort of their heavy handed and heavily moderated boards. :)

Their lack of education in terms of any understanding of alternative ideas is also a significant problem for them in debate. Most of them still don't know much about Birkeland's work or Alfven's work or Peratt's work.

The fact that the mainstream simply ignored the role of inelastic scattering in plasma says volumes about the utterly absurd nature of their basic cosmology beliefs. Instead of embracing empirical physical solutions to observations in space based on observations from laboratory plasma experiments, they created three supernatural entities to try to "fix" their obvious 'rookie" mistake! Hoy Vey.

The whole dark matter of the gaps claim has become a *complete* fiasco after all the very expensive negative results from LHC, LUX, Pandax, the electron roundness tests, etc, etc, etc. Even though the baryonic mass estimates that were used in that now infamous 2006 lensing paper on dark matter were shown to be flawed in numerous ways, they're limited by their own dogma as to how much they can even accommodate any serious modification of the percentage of exotic matter, so they simply have to rely upon pure denial on that topic.

It's definitely not an easy time to be a public LCDM proponent. :)

I'd almost feel sorry for them if they weren't so draconian in their methods on their own boards. The witch trial forum (against the mainstream forum) at Cosmoquest best exemplifies their inability to handle any serious debate, and it's only going to get worse over time. They'll be burning heretics and witches for a long time because they simply refuse to embrace empirical physics, and their supernatural claims just don't make any sense.


Well stated, Michael. But at least they've only wasted tens of billions of dollars. The proponents of the Man-Made Global Warming meme, who are products of the same university/lab system, have probably cost the world at least a trillion dollars so far. Of course, who can say where humanity might be now had some of our *best* scientists not spent so much time chasing dark matter gnomes instead of doing real science on the nature of matter, energy and the cosmos. Maybe that has cost humanity trillions of dollars in lost growth, too. :D
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

The stagnatiuon factor alone is absurd

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed May 03, 2017 3:30 pm

Considering the fact that 95 percent of LCDM is nothing but placeholder terms for human ignorance, there's certainly a lot of room for progress, and you'd expect to see some progress over the last two decades. The reality is quite the opposite because really nothing much has changed in almost (not quite) the past two decades. Nothing akin to an actual decrease in their ignorance about dark matter has occurred in all that time, even after spending billions of dollars on their hypothetical matter claims. So much for any real progress related to DM. That alone is depressing enough.

The last "dark energy" study that I read based upon a much larger SN1A population study put the whole idea of acceleration at only about 3.1 sigma, far below the 5.0 sigma "discovery" point that is typical in physics. They've already handed out Nobel prizes however, so now what do they do? If anything they've regressed in terms of finding any explanation of 'dark energy' since the concept was first proposed almost two decades ago.

I'm tempted to believe that LUX-LZ represents the mainstream's only remaining hope for exotic matter salvation, otherwise their interaction cross section of DM will be "constrained" into the same range as neutrino interactions, and then what?

The whole LCMD paradigm is about to go the way of the epicycle mathematical models that once tried to place the Earth at the center of the universe, and there's really nothing that LCMD proponents can do about it. It's only a matter of time because the physics simply isn't on their side.

I used to be pretty skeptical about seeing any real change in cosmology in my lifetime, but I'm certainly more optimistic after the DM fiasco. Over the past decade the mainstream has very efficiently and very methodically falsified all their best mathematical models and they're now scraping the bottom of the barrel and praying for a miracle. Even worse for their model, they found a whole bunch of problems in their baryonic mass estimates from that 2006 lensing paper, and they only just discovered most of the mass of our own galaxy in the last 5 years.

They have undermined their own model in both directions at once. :) They may have burned through a lot of cash, but they also burned through a lot of their mathematical gaps too. :)

I think the DM fiasco will be the final death sentence of the LCDM model because without exotic matter, their model simply falls apart at the seams. LCDM is such a delicate cosmology theory in fact, it cannot even survive a significant modification in the DM/baryon mass ratios without the whole model blowing up in their face.

I predict that the mainstream will try to defend LCMD for about 5 more years until all the LHC data has been sifted through, and until LUX-LZ is forced to report more negative results, and then all hell is going to break loose. LCDM proponents really need an exotic form of *stable* matter to fix their otherwise falsified model, and all the evidence to date suggests that there simply is no such thing.

Denial is their only remaining stall tactic, but that's going to get real old the moment that the LUX-LZ results come in.

It should be an interesting next decade. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: The stagnatiuon factor alone is absurd

Unread postby BeAChooser » Wed May 03, 2017 11:35 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:I'm tempted to believe that LUX-LZ represents the mainstream's only remaining hope for exotic matter salvation, otherwise their interaction cross section of DM will be "constrained" into the same range as neutrino interactions, and then what?


They'll likely find other ways to waste tens of millions of dollars.

Consider IAXO: http://www.brera.inaf.it/MeetingIAXO/Pr ... ascati.pdf .
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Whipping a dead horse....

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu May 04, 2017 12:26 pm

BeAChooser wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:I'm tempted to believe that LUX-LZ represents the mainstream's only remaining hope for exotic matter salvation, otherwise their interaction cross section of DM will be "constrained" into the same range as neutrino interactions, and then what?


They'll likely find other ways to waste tens of millions of dollars.

Consider IAXO: http://www.brera.inaf.it/MeetingIAXO/Pr ... ascati.pdf .


Oy Vey. I can't help but wonder what it might take to kill off a hypothetical claim that was based on bad information and horrifically flawed baryonic mass estimates, and which has already failed *billions* of dollars worth of "tests"?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16667

How long can they keep up that dark matter charade anyway?

Do you think that any of them feel the least bit guilty for teaching falsified nonsense to unsuspecting students yet?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
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 » Sun May 07, 2017 11:14 pm

Hi Michael,
I am interested in why you feel that dark matter is a misconception and what you see wrong in the measurements and calculations that have resulted in the conclusions about the existence of dark matter.
Bengt Nyman
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby neilwilkes » Mon May 08, 2017 1:28 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:Hi Michael,
I am interested in why you feel that dark matter is a misconception and what you see wrong in the measurements and calculations that have resulted in the conclusions about the existence of dark matter.
Bengt Nyman


Not Michael, but the whole "dark matter" thing is to my mind a modern version of Ptolemy's epicycles - an ad hoc bolt-on to prop up the misconception of a Big Bang cosmology based on expansion that is also not happening either. Dark Matter was invented to try & explain how galaxies rotate (as well as (along with so-called "Dark Energy") to try & "explain why galaxies do not just fly apart because gravity alone cannot hold them together) with only gravity to control things and is not needed with the plasma based cosmology any more than Black Holes are.
Modern cosmology is so far removed from reality it is just no longer even funny any more - just plain embarrassing. All the mathematicians would do well to remember Einsteins words in a moment of honesty when he said "As far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality".
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby Webbman » Mon May 08, 2017 5:17 am

neilwilkes wrote:
Bengt Nyman wrote:Hi Michael,
I am interested in why you feel that dark matter is a misconception and what you see wrong in the measurements and calculations that have resulted in the conclusions about the existence of dark matter.
Bengt Nyman


Not Michael, but the whole "dark matter" thing is to my mind a modern version of Ptolemy's epicycles - an ad hoc bolt-on to prop up the misconception of a Big Bang cosmology based on expansion that is also not happening either. Dark Matter was invented to try & explain how galaxies rotate (as well as (along with so-called "Dark Energy") to try & "explain why galaxies do not just fly apart because gravity alone cannot hold them together) with only gravity to control things and is not needed with the plasma based cosmology any more than Black Holes are.
Modern cosmology is so far removed from reality it is just no longer even funny any more - just plain embarrassing. All the mathematicians would do well to remember Einsteins words in a moment of honesty when he said "As far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality".


Well said. Maybe its prudent for people to learn about their world before they try to tackle the universe.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Mon May 08, 2017 5:35 am

Thank you neilwilkes.
I understand and share much of your skepticism against SM models which can not be balanced and verified without the introduction of very large terms of a fantastic or man made nature. For example, the conclusions about the accelerating expansion of the universe based on Doppler red-shift alone, without correction for light energy losses and consequent shifts of absorption lines caused by prolonged negotiating through a partly hydrogen cloudy universe.
I am looking for what assumptions and calculations that we think can be the basis for some of the very large errors that appear to be corrupting the present Standard Model of the universe.
Take for example the problem with the missing mass. I understand the skepticism against both Black Holes and Black matter/energy. However, do we need all three to get the gravitational calculations to work, or could an enlightened understanding of the center of galaxies provide a step forward.
P.S. Thank you Webbman, I couldn't agree more.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
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 » Mon May 08, 2017 12:43 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:Hi Michael,
I am interested in why you feel that dark matter is a misconception and what you see wrong in the measurements and calculations that have resulted in the conclusions about the existence of dark matter.
Bengt Nyman


The primary "evidence" to support their dark matter claim comes from the now infamous 2006 lensing study of the Bullet Cluster collision:

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407

If you look at the methods they're using to determine baryonic mass in that paper, it's all based upon brightness formulas which are then converted into mass based upon a *series* of assumptions about how many stars might be responsible for that level of brightness at that distance.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

Since 2006 however, there have been five major revelations of a systematic problem with their flawed calculation of stellar masses that are present in various galaxies and galaxy clusters:

1) Two years later in 2008, they "discovered" that they've been underestimating the amount of scattering taking place in the IGM, and the universe is actually at least *twice as bright* as they *assumed*, leading to an *underestimation* of stellar mass:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/archiv ... 439,en.php

Keep in mind that their entire basis for the baryonic mass calculation of stellar masses relates back to galaxy brightness. They blew the brightness aspect by a factor of two.

2) They "discovered" a year later that they've been using a *flawed* method of 'guestimating" the number of smaller stars that cannot be directly observed at a distance, compared to the larger mass stars that we actually can observe at a distance. They underestimated stellar counts of stars the size of our sun by a factor of 4. and all of it was *ordinary baryonic material*! Ooops....

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex ... 90819.html

3) The following year in 2010, they 'discovered" that they've been underestimating the most *common* sized star (dwarf stars) in various galaxies by a *whopping* factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the galaxy type. Again, they grossly underestimated the *normal baryonic material* that is present in galaxies. Oooopsy......

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/ ... ion-stars/

4) Two years after that, in 2012, they 'discovered' more ordinary baryonic matter *surrounding* every galaxy that exist inside of the stars themselves. In fact they discovered more ordinary baryonic matter in 2012 than had been ''discovered' since the dawn of human history.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/398

5) Last year in 2014 they also "discovered" that they underestimated the number of stars *between galaxies*, particularly galaxies undergoing a collision process like that Bullet Cluster study:

http://www.realclearscience.com/journal ... 08929.html

There's been at least *five* revelations of *serious* baryonic mass underestimation problems used in that 2006 lensing study that claimed to find 'proof' of exotic forms of matter. They didn't prove any such thing in 2006. All they *actually* "proved" was that their baryonic mass estimation techniques were *worthless* in 2006 as at least five major discoveries have since *verified*. Note also that their stellar mass underestimates are congruent with their finding that most of the 'missing mass' which they called "dark matter' simply "passed on through" the collision process. Since stars are spread so far apart, they don't typically 'collide' in a galaxy collision, and therefore mass contained in stars, including all the stars they forgot to count, would indeed pass right on through that Bullet Cluster collision just as they observed in their lensing patterns.


Because all of their baryonic mass calculations relate back to the estimation of mass based on brightness and their stellar ratio estimations, every one of these revelations pokes huge holes in their claim.

The plasma 'halo' around our own galaxy also undermines any argument related to galaxy rotation patterns. They didn't even know about that mass until 2012, and they didn't know it rotated like their "dark matter halo" models until just last year. You could literally replace their exotic matter halo with ordinary plasma and achieve the exactly same results in terms of galaxy rotation patterns.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
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 » Mon May 08, 2017 1:52 pm

Agreed.
Dark meaning something known but not yet illuminated is one thing. Dark implying something new, spectacular and supernatural is just a stunt for attention and more funding.
As far as your title: "The mainstream can not handle.." They do not have to. They simply claim the discoveries that pleases them and ignore the rest. It's politics, not science.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
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 » Mon May 08, 2017 3:24 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:Agreed.
Dark meaning something known but not yet illuminated is one thing. Dark implying something new, spectacular and supernatural is just a stunt for attention and more funding.


Exactly. Exotic forms of "missing mass" are only required to save one specific, and otherwise falsified cosmology theory. That fact alone should raise a few eyebrows. :)

As far as your title: "The mainstream can not handle.." They do not have to. They simply claim the discoveries that pleases them and ignore the rest. It's politics, not science.


It's also the very definition of confirmation bias. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

It's almost comical how poorly they do trying to publicly defend their supernatural nonsense on a neutral forum:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... e.8003737/
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon May 08, 2017 3:57 pm

General trend:

Researcher1: "We have an observation that breaks with our previous models"
Mainstream: "No problem, we have hypothesis X" (invisible undetectable matter)
Researcher2: "Hypothesis X seems to work, if we simplify the reality very very much"
(simplification: acceleration = matter)
Mainstream: "Yes, hypothesis X must be true"
Researcher3: "We need to ignore some observations too"
(Ignore: all other dynamics and new observations)
Mainstream: "As long it is simple and we can keep all other models"
Researcher4: "We have not found any serious evidence at all"
(No dark matter particles or whatever)
Mainstream: "Just keep on searching, here is some more money"

Alternative researcher: "Hey, I have a different hypothesis, that works a lot better."
(electromagnetic interactions)
Mainstream: "We already have a hypothesis that works and is simple, so get out!"
Alternative researcher: "But yours does actually not work"
(dark matter conflicts with observations and dynamics)
Mainstream: "That proofs that you know nothing of science. Get out!"
Michael: "But that hypothesis is not science, it can not be falsified".
Mainstream: "Huh?"
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue May 09, 2017 6:05 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:Michael: "But that hypothesis is not science, it can not be falsified".
Mainstream: "Huh?"


Yep, that's about their reaction alright as best demonstrated by that CF thread I cited earlier. :)

I still haven't heard them explain any logical way to falsify their DM claim. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmolo

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu May 11, 2017 2:17 pm

Need Data to Help Create Alternative Science Wiki
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16714&p=119561#p119561

Please see that thread and help out. The CNPS Wiki is in preparation and will hopefully present all of the overlooked and misrepresented data, in all science topics eventually.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4232
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest