What's up with Reddit?

[Michael Mozina]

Two Reddit threads that I've participated in over the last three days have simply 'disappeared', including a new thread which I personally started today in the astronomy forum on the topic of Plasma Cosmology theory. There were a total of six comments in that one before it simply disappeared.

The previous thread that disappeared wasn't one that I personally started, but I'd made a number of posts to the thread before it simply vanished.

Are the threads disappearing because they've somehow been "downvoted" off the board, or do the moderators have a problem with any discussion of EU/PC theory?

[D_Archer]

Reddit is part of the matrix, so my guess your posts are deleted by cloaked agents.

If that is not the case than repost... and ask the mods?

Regards,
Daniel

[Zyxzevn]

Are the threads disappearing because they've somehow been "downvoted" off the board, or do the moderators have a problem with any discussion of EU/PC theory?

Posts can not be downvoted off the board. They can be made less visible, though.
It is likely that they are removed, because some people think that EU is a bad topic.

[Michael Mozina]

Are the threads disappearing because they've somehow been "downvoted" off the board, or do the moderators have a problem with any discussion of EU/PC theory?

Posts can not be downvoted off the board. They can be made less visible, though.
It is likely that they are removed, because some people think that EU is a bad topic.

Yep. evidently so. Apparently any mention of Hannes Alfven and/or Anthony Peratt on the astronomy forum of Reddit results in an instant ban:

You've been banned from participating in r/Astronomy

from VoijaRisa[M] via /r/Astronomy

Your entire posting history in /r/Astronomy has been promoting EU pseudoscience which has no place in a science based sub.

You have been banned from participating in r/Astronomy. You can still view and subscribe to r/Astronomy, but you won't be able to post or comment.

If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team for r/Astronomy by replying to this message.

FYI, most of my posts at the astronomy forum on Reddit had been on the topics of gravitational waves and dark energy. I did post a thread with a link to the Youtube video of Birkeland's *working* cathode solar model in one thread prior to my "offending thread", but I don't think there even were any negative responses to that solar thread, and it was a very short thread.

Revisiting Kristian Birkeland's cathode solar model. (self.Astronomy)

submitted 3 days ago by MichaelMozina

This two minute video provides a great introduction to the cathode solar model that was first proposed by Kristian Birkeland in the early 1900's. With his cathode solar model Birkeland successfully predicted the existence of electron beams from the sun, both types of charged particles in high speed solar wind, solar flares, polar jets, and pretty much everything that we observed in modern satellite imagery today, including the sun's hot corona. IMO this is a much better working model of the sun than the standard model, particularly as it relates to solar atmospheric physics.

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

https://phys.org/news/2013-11-electron- ... e-sun.html

This was my my entire offending discussion on the topic of PC/EU cosmology theory, the one that got removed within hours of me posting it, and the one that apparently got me banned:

Plasma cosmology (self.Astronomy)

submitted 2 days ago by MichaelMozina

This book by Anthony Peratt is probably the best introduction to the topic of Plasma Cosmology theory as first proposed by Hannes Alfven. Peratt's book is significantly more detailed in terms of his mathematical presentation of the concepts. Essentially Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe theory is a method of describing the universe based on pure empirical physics, and circuit theory as it applies to events in space. If you haven't read Peratt's work, I strongly recommend it.

https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Plasma-As ... 9027711518

Hannes Alfven's book is also a good introduction to the topic, but it's a little lighter reading in terms of the math.

By the way:

http://www.plasmauniverse.info/download ... l.1993.pdf

This is a pretty good, easily accessible, and free introductory paper on Plasma Cosmology which was written by Peratt.

[–]plaidhat1

As I understand it, both Plasma cosmology and Electric Universe theory are widely discredited. Why would I want even the best book on discredited hypotheses?

I believe that you're misinformed. What specific observation or information do you believe "widely discredits" Alfven's/Peratt's Plasma Cosmology model?

plaidhat1:
The part its claims don't stand up to examination. As an example, Birkeland currents of the magnitude 10^18 amps over a distance of megaparsecs are needed by the hypothesis in order for galaxies to form, but don't exist. Or the part where it predicts x-rays and gamma rays in greater abundance than exist. Or the part where the standard model makes more accurate predictions about the Cosmic Microwave Backgrounds.

What the mainstream calls/attributes to "dark matter filaments" are actually nothing more than ordinary Birkeland currents of plasma which "wire" the universe together. The gamma and x-ray abundance issues which you refer to would only relate to a very small subset of "big bang" type configurations at worst case, not to the entire EU range of cosmology theories, including static universe type arguments.

http://theconversation.com/filaments-th ... asar-22146

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5700993/celestia ... cosmic-web

The LCDM model can't make any correct predictions about the CMB without evoking at four different non-empirically demonstrated metaphysical "fudge factors", so I'd hardly call that a "win".

FYI, Eddington correctly predicted the average background temperature of spacetime to within 1/2 of degree of the correct number based on the scattering of starlight on the dust of spacetime. It took big bang proponents 3 or 4 tries to get any closer to the correct number, and they were originally off by more than a whole order of magnitude.

Note that I was not even given a single "warning' before I was banned outright.

Now of course I replied to the illustrious VoijaRisa and I asked him how I was even supposed to know that posting peer reviewed materials by the Nobel prize winning author Hannes Alfven and/or his student Anthony Peratt were 'taboo' topics on the astronomy forum, and a banning offense, since there's nothing posted anywhere to that effect on the astronomy forum.

Never mind of course that LCDM is based on *four* invisible metaphysical constructs, *and* one form of pure "pseudoscience" according to Hannes Alfven, the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory. I'm somehow discussing "pseudoscience" in his twisted mind for daring to describe events in space using pure empirical physics. Oh the irony.

Of course VoijaRisa wasn't man enough to answer my question about how I was supposed to read his mind in advance of my post, so apparently that one thread earned me a permanent ban on the astronomy forum at Reddit without so much as a single heads up or warning.

This only goes to demonstrate that the mainstream cannot handle an honest scientific debate. The only way they can deal with the threat to their metaphysical dogma from empirical physics is by killing all of the messengers of empirical physics by brute force, instantly, and with a vengeance. Sad, sad, sad.......

VoijaRisa never even gave me the courtesy of a heads up about his PC bigotry, or even a single warning before his instant permanent ban. So much for scientific integrity. They really do have a palpable fear of empirical physics. Even the mere mention of an empirical cosmology theory written by a Nobel Prize winning author results in an instant ban.

[Zyxzevn]

I am in a discussion on plasma physics at reddit r/physics/ now.
I think it is an interesting topic on how scientists & students think about plasma physics.

I am criticizing the idea of magnetic reconnection, because it is based on invalid physics.
And they all agree that the field lines are indeed not physical.
But they also think that they can help to approach the problem.
I counter with the fact that using the wrong model might cause errors,
but they think that it does not matter.
Probably because they always learned to use it in that way.

And that is generally a bad thing. The students are not learning to understand and
proof the formulas any more. They just learn to apply formulas in the way the
tutors describe them.

This tendency really shows how bad our education system is. And how
future scientists do not even understand the foundations of physics any more.

For example, the magnetic reconnection is based on many false assumptions.
One is the false assumption that E=0 in plasma, by assuming that plasma
is a (near) super-conductor.
And on the false assumption that magnetic forces are dominant in plasma and
are structured in lines.
And that is based on the observation of lines on the sun, that seem similar
to magnetic field lines, but are actually plasma currents.

I once criticized the usage of surface currents in permanent magnets. Because these
magnets are caused by magnetic domains, not surface currents. The material would
also behave very different.
I got both upvotes and downvotes, because some wanted to defend the educational
material, and some recognized that it was wrong.
I think that it is ok to teach something wrong, if and only if you provide the information
that the model is inaccurate and can not be used every time.

All these discussions make me realize that the scientists need to
be re-educated on the foundations of astronomy.
It seems that we can easily persuade a lot of scientists to look deeper into the matter.
I would be banned/blocked to criticize the big bang or black holes, but maybe
it is possible to educate people on the foundations that these
models are based upon.

[Michael Mozina]

All these discussions make me realize that the scientists need to
be re-educated on the foundations of astronomy.
It seems that we can easily persuade a lot of scientists to look deeper into the matter.
I would be banned/blocked to criticize the big bang or black holes, but maybe
it is possible to educate people on the foundations that these
models are based upon.

Alfven himself tried to educate them about the dangers of magnetic reconnection theory, and the value of circuit theory as it applies to events in space. He even provided them with his double layer paper which makes MR theory irrelevant and obsolete. I'm not sure it's possible to educate someone who isn't the least bit interested in being educated. If he couldn't do it, what hope do I have, particularly when they ban anyone who even tries to educate them?

[orrery]

The default Subreddits are moderated by gatekeeper scum who wouldn't know real science if it bit them on the ass. /r/PlasmaCosmology is best sub.

[Metryq]

It's a Jevlenese conspiracy.