The "all or nothing" dilemma for the mainstream

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 "all or nothing" dilemma for the mainstream

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:07 am

Probably the most difficult aspect of change for mainstream astronomers is that they face an "all or nothing" dilemma. There's no easy path for change to occur. The LCDM model is so "tightly constrained" that it's not possible for instance to modify the percentage of dark matter in their model by say even 20-30 percent without destroying all of their computer modeling, their nucleosysnthesis predictions, etc. That's true of inflation, space expansion and dark energy as well. Even a relatively minor modification tends to falsify the entire LCDM model, not just some small aspect of it.

Compare and contrast that to EU/PC potential for change for a moment. For instance, there are at least three primary EU/PC solar models, Jeurgen's anode model, Birkeland's cathode model and Alfven's relatively standard "homopolar" solar model. Even if one or more of these solar models is falsified by the Parker Solar probe data, it's entirely possible to simply use one of the other models and pick up the pieces and move on, and still not be forced to abandon the entire EU/PC cosmology paradigm. EU theory can accommodate a static universe interpretation of photon redshift, or an expansion interpretation of redshift, or a combination of both options without the need to completely abandon the entire EU/PC model. There's far more freedom for change associated with EU/PC models at the moment, so there's no need for us to panic over one or two observations that seems to contradict some part of the EU/PC option set. A falsification of Jeurgen's anode solar model might simply result in a preference change toward Birkeland's cathode model for instance, or Alfven's solar model. Since there's no current dependency on exotic forms of matter or energy in EU/PC theory, not finding such things in the lab is no skin off of our nose. Even if such things are ultimately discovered in future laboratory experiments, they can be incorporated into an EU/PC cosmology model in the future. There's virtually nothing that we might discover that would force us to completely abandon all aspects of EU/PC cosmology theory.

The mainstream however is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Their model is too dependent upon metaphysical entities. It's impossible for them to embrace the standard particle physics model. Their beliefs can't be modified very much without other aspects of the model falling apart at the seams. It's the ultimate scientific house of cards. If even one part fails, the whole thing falls down instantly and nothing remains standing.

Higgsy's recent denial based song and dance routine over exotic matter demonstrates the nature and the depth of the problem. He has no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that his baryonic mass estimation techniques are correct, yet he is entirely dependent upon them being correct. He has no evidence from the lab to support exotic matter models either. That's why he's forced to simply deny the fact that every aspect of trying to ascertain baryonic mass of distant galaxies which are based on luminosity have been blown out of the water over the last 12 years. He can't embrace the possibility that the standard particle physics model is correct, lest his entire belief system crumble and fall apart. The mainstream has painted themselves into a metaphysical corner, and there's no way out without tossing out the whole belief system in one fell swoop. I think that's why the mainstream has such a violent emotional reaction to any public mention of EU/PC theory. Somewhere down inside they must know that empirical physical solutions are "better" than metaphysical speculation, but there is simply no way to save any face at all and modify their own beliefs to incorporate new information with respect to the validity of the standard particle physics model, or with respect to EU aspects of solar physics. They are completely backed up against the metaphysical wall so their reaction to alternative beliefs is quick, it's intense, and it's violent, hence the strong need to ban and and all EU/PC proponents from their websites.

In some ways I feel very sorry for "younger" professional astronomers, true "believers" who once believed or still believe in their metaphysical nonsense. They're too young to make it all the way to retirement without embracing empirical physics, and yet they are too entrenched in their career at this point to not suffer greatly from the changes that must occur in astronomy and that will inevitably occur in astronomy. I feel really bad for new astronomy students of today. They're being led down a metaphysical primrose path that is ultimately doomed to blow up in their faces sometime during their career. Change won't come easy for them either, and it's going to be really painful from the standpoint of ego death.

For a "non-professional" such as myself, it's relatively easy to change astronomy viewpoints. It wasn't a particularly difficult choice for me to abandon the LCDM model in favor of empirical physics. I wasn't professionally or monetarily attached to the LCDM model, so letting it go wasn't really that difficult. If there's any part of EU/PC theory that I'm most "attached" to publicly and personally, it's Birkeland cathode solar model, but if the Parker solar probe or some other satellite program happens to falsify that model, I'll willingly embrace a different solar model.

Someone like Tyson or Krauss however can't easily admit that their entire professional career has been a sham all along, and EU/PC theory is simply a better long term scientific choice. They're far too professionally, emotionally and financially invested in the LCDM model. As a result, they'll most likely go to their graves clinging to metaphysics. I feel sorry for them too, but I'm too upset that they're so willing and intent on leading others down that same metaphysical primrose path to feel that sorry for them. They're doing current astronomy students a terrible disservice by acting so confident that they're on the right metaphysical path. It would be better if they showed at least some humility, and left the door open to empirical physics, but alas that simply isn't the case. :( Change is therefore that much harder for professionals to embrace.
Last edited by Michael Mozina on Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1661
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: The "all or nothing" dilemma for the mainstream

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:38 am

Nothing would be better, for everybody.

The universe is much larger and wondrous than we can imagine, there is no 'model' we can suppose now that will ever be the complete story, it is nescience to try.

The mantra should be, stick to what you can observe directly and do your best to understand/explain that.

Also any 'greater' idea about the universe should come from philosophers not scientists.

Recently i read the thread about that the ocean is a gel, i thought the same could hold for space, everything is held together, interwoven and connected and part of larger and larger systems...and it all resembles life (living systems).

The ancients knew 'all is one' and one in the end is better than nothing :D

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Rules from the astronomy forum on Reddit

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:44 am

Pseudoscience

/r/Astronomy is a science based sub. Pseudoscience (Creationism, Electric Universe, Flat Earthism, Ancient Aliens, Moon Landing conspiracy, etc...) will be removed. Similarly, this is not the place for half baked "theories" or outlandish hypotheticals.


I'd argue that the rule section of the astronomy forum on Reddit demonstrates the absolute height of hypocrisy. To label EU/PC "pseudoscience"on par with flat earthism and ancient aliens is like labeling the standard particle physics model "pseudoscience".

The hypocrisy factor of "approving/labeling" concepts like dark matter, dark energy, space expansion and inflation as "science" while refusing to even allow for empirical physical alternatives to be discussed there is quite amusing. Just look at the LCDM model. Talk about "half baked" concepts. They don't have a *clue* what dark matter might be or how to find it, not a clue where dark energy might come from or how it retains a constant density throughout expansion. They don't have any empirical example of inflation or space expansion having any tangible effect on a photon or an electron in a real experiment with real control mechanisms, and yet these half baked concepts are allowed to be discussed openly. Meanwhile, working solar models, complete with a hot full sphere hot corona can't even be discussed there. Wow.

I'd say their rule section of the astronomy forum on Reddit clearly illuminates the very serious problem with astronomy today. The LCDM model is full of half baked metaphysical nonsense being passed off as "science". and yet the mere discussion of empirical physics is a ban-able offense. How pitiful.

This is the kind of irrational behavior and irrational prejudice against empirical physics that has resulted in the field of astronomy becoming the absolute laughing stock of physics. The LCDM model is not even compatible with the most successful particle physics model in the history of particle physics research, a model that passed every conceivable predictive test at LHC with flying colors. Meanwhile cosmology models that *are* 100 percent compatible with the standard particle physics model and which actually work in the lab are discarded out of hand as "pseudoscience'. Simply pitiful.

It really is an all or nothing proposition for astronomy in 2019. In order to become compatible with the standard particle physics model and compatible with empirical physics in general, professional astronomers must completely abandon their metaphysical nonsense entirely. There's simply no easy way to get from metaphysics to empirical physics without destroying the huge egos and the professional careers of virtually every astronomer on the planet.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1661
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: The "all or nothing" dilemma for the mainstream

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:31 am

I just found this example:

Twin LIGO/Virgo Detections of a Viable Gravitationally-Lensed Black Hole Merger
https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.03190

The LIGO/Virgo events GW170809 and GW170814 have indistinguishable waveforms separated by 5 days, and overlap on the sky within the 90\% credible region.


So they found an identical signal 5 days later.
For me this is a clear indication that they have found a glitch in their detector or process.
Not some weird situation deep in space.

Looks very similar to how a "new particle signal" in CERN was related to the trains passing by.

I am just amazed how common sense has disappeared from astronomy.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Rules from the astronomy forum on Reddit

Unread postby JHL » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:55 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
Pseudoscience

/r/Astronomy is a science based sub. Pseudoscience (Creationism, Electric Universe, Flat Earthism, Ancient Aliens, Moon Landing conspiracy, etc...) will be removed. Similarly, this is not the place for half baked "theories" or outlandish hypotheticals.


I'd argue that the rule section of the astronomy forum on Reddit demonstrates the absolute height of hypocrisy. To label EU/PC "pseudoscience"on par with flat earthism and ancient aliens is like labeling the standard particle physics model "pseudoscience".


Likewise Wikipedia, the world's preeminent authority on absolutely everything, finds climate site Watt's Up With That to be "a blog promoting climate change denial". Note the rich intentionalism there: Wikipedia authors have divined the will and aim of others to then find it heretical.

Whether AGW is real or not, and regardless of a reader's belief, this description amounts to a baldfaced textual fallacy. Here an unproved and unprovable theory is granted the status of prominent truth and those not seeing it as such by default must necessarily be pseudo scientists. It's circular.

It's the same truth-by-popular-acclaim posture taken by any mob belief not against pseudo science per se, but against dissension against that mob's local, prevailing norm.

Oddly it's the most self-styled progressive minds who clamp down on the most progressed discussions this way. The point is obviously not what's real but what will we allow to pose as real and by what exclusive rules shall we protect ourselves from an alternative. It hardly fits the definition of science despite claiming all the rank and unique privilege of science.
JHL
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: The "all or nothing" dilemma for the mainstream

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:01 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
I am just amazed how common sense has disappeared from astronomy.


Hmmmmm. Frankly I'm not convinced that common sense and/or logic has ever been a big part of astronomy. It seems like the field of astronomy has always suffered from a bad case of human arrogance, human ignorance, metaphysical nonsense and confirmation bias.

It wasn't very logical to simply "assume" that the Earth was the center of the physical universe, but indeed that's exactly what professional astronomers arrogantly and ignorantly "assumed" for over a thousand years. They even created ever more complex and ridiculous epicycles to try to explain away the obvious flaws in their assumptions, and continued to ignore their obvious problems for centuries.

Astronomer's preference for expansion of "space" as a so called explanation for photon redshift isn't based on anything remotely like common sense. In lab experiments space doesn't do any magical expansion tricks or have any physical effect on a photon, whereas photons "naturally" transfer some of their momentum to a plasma medium in a lab. Hubble himself preferred a tired light interpretation of redshift as he got older, and more distant galaxies were found, but astronomers illogically reject that possibility entirely.

Even the more recent inclusion of 'dark energy' flew in the face of common sense. Logically speaking, astronomers should have simply abandoned their expansion interpretation of redshift when their prediction of a slowing universe failed observational tests. Instead, they simply invented/made up a whole new form of magical energy to account for their failed predictions and they turned that magical new energy into 70 percent of their new model.

Birkeland created a working model of planetary aurora and a hot full sphere solar corona over 100 years ago in a lab. He and his team even took ground based measurements to show the correlation to those experiments. Instead of embracing a common sense approach to explaining these things and embracing his work, astronomers arrogantly and ignorantly ignored his work for 70 years with respect to aurora in favor of Chapman's opinions, and they continue to ignore Birkeland's work with respect to solar physics to this very day, in favor of a concept that Alfven called "pseudoscience".

If ever there was anything remotely like common sense in astronomy, it went flying out the window in the late 1970's and early 80's when Guth first proposed inflation theory. In spite of the fact that Guth's original paper was later shown to be false, and in spite of the fact that the whole concept defies the laws of physics, astronomers gleefully embraced that metaphysical nonsense anyway.

Joseph Webber erroneously claimed for years that his silly primitive detectors could pick up gravitational waves, only to find out eventually that his results were invalid, yet LIGO made virtually every one of the very same mistakes that Webber made when they boastfully claimed and assumed that naturally occuring localized processes could not ever be picked up by both detectors at once, therefore distant black holes did it.

In 2006, two different methods of calculating mass didn't agree. Common sense and logic would suggest that at least one of those two methods was seriously flawed. Instead of taking a common sense approach to resolving the problem, astronomers arrogantly and ignorantly assumed that both of the mass calculation methods were accurate, therefore they found "proof" that exotic forms of dark invisible matter did it.

Even though their luminosity methods of mass calculation have repeatedly been shown to be riddled with serious flaws since that 2006 paper was originally published, they continue to refuse to embrace the common sense approach and acknowledge their original mistakes in their mass calculation method based on luminosity.

The common sense approach to failing billions of dollars worth of lab tests would typically result in one abandoning the idea of exotic forms of matter, but dark matter continues to be promoted in spite of it's enormous failures in the lab and in spite of the fact that their luminosity calculations of mass are shown to be riddled with serious and numerous flaws.

I'm not sure common sense and/or logic have ever been strongly associated with astronomy. It seems like astronomy has been consistently plagued by human arrogance, human ignorance, metaphysical nonsense, and a bad case of confirmation bias.

The only way to fix astronomy in 2019 is to throw it all out and start over based on common sense and logic. Unfortunately I think it will be awhile before that happens.
Last edited by Michael Mozina on Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1661
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: The "all or nothing" dilemma for the mainstream

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:10 pm

Image

What if it matched some prediction, and they never found the source?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: The "all or nothing" dilemma for the mainstream

Unread postby kevin » Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:09 pm

Meteor hits moon..... they declare.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... r-eclipse/
Flash?????

Could it be a discharge?

Never even a thought of it been a discharge.

kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: The "all or nothing" dilemma for the mainstream

Unread postby Cargo » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:09 pm

But there is no 'atmosphere' on the moon to create a shockwave/flash/explosion. Right? lol
All or nothing indeed.

Of course these are all arc discharges upon solar space body encounter, I believe. But beyond that, this is the Moon for gods sake. If they have a been tracking all these flashes for a decade (or longer), counting them literally like a catalog, why haven't they done a paper on the craters they must 'know' that they create. I would think that would be a nice conclusion to some kind of science at the least. We saw this flash, and here's the before/after picture of the where the flash occurred. Look at the pretty crater, and strata, and geologically impact.

Not the mention the astro-physic readings of the 'spectrum' of these flashes.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
Cargo
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: The "all or nothing" dilemma for the mainstream

Unread postby Metryq » Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:29 am

Cargo wrote:Not the mention the astro-physic readings of the 'spectrum' of these flashes.

Hmmm, lots of UV and x-rays in that "impact." It must have been antimatter wrapped in dark matter from the 12th dimension!
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: The "all or nothing" dilemma for the mainstream

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:09 am

kevin wrote:Meteor hits moon..... they declare.
....
Could it be a discharge?

The impact can cause quite a spark by itself.
This is due to:
1) breaking of electrical bonds in the material
2) piezo electric
3) something like sonoluminescence
4) resistance / scratching
5) heat due to energy of impact
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm


Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron