There are three stages in scientific discovery...

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

There are three stages in scientific discovery...

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:08 pm

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/397226 ... eople-deny

“There are three stages in scientific discovery. First, people deny that it is true, then they deny that it is important; finally they credit the wrong person.” - Bill Bryson


That quote is certainly true in the field of astronomy. Aristarchus of Samos beat Copernicus to the concept of heliocentrism by more than 18 centuries, but Copernicus is given all the credit for the 'discovery". At the moment most of the astronomy community is stuck somewhere between the first and second stages with respect to EU/PC theory. It's only a matter of time before they try to cut Birkeland and Alfven out of the loop. That's how we will know that we're making real progress. :)

Someone posted that quote to a Reddit thread and it made me laugh out loud so I decided to share it here.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1661
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: There are three stages in scientific discovery...

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:08 pm

In astronomy they have their unique scientific methodology.
They start with some theoretical model, then they oversimplify it,
add invisible stuff and apply it on a different situation.
This usually does not only break the original model, but also basic physics.

Then they claim that it works, because they found a rare case that is similar to what the
false model predicted.
And now any observation and criticism that shows the model is wrong, is attacked.
The new "discovery" starts new research by PhD's and they slowly breed
a new theoretical model on top of the old false one.
That way the system maintains itself, and the theories contain more and more
things that are never detected or can never be detected.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: There are three stages in scientific discovery...

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:50 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:In astronomy they have their unique scientific methodology.
They start with some theoretical model, then they oversimplify it,
add invisible stuff and apply it on a different situation.
This usually does not only break the original model, but also basic physics.

Then they claim that it works, because they found a rare case that is similar to what the
false model predicted.
And now any observation and criticism that shows the model is wrong, is attacked.
The new "discovery" starts new research by PhD's and they slowly breed
a new theoretical model on top of the old false one.
That way the system maintains itself, and the theories contain more and more
things that are never detected or can never be detected.


I think you're being a little too kind my friend by referring to that pretty accurate representation of their irrational behavior as a 'unique scientific methodology." :)

It's more like the antithesis of scientific methodology.

I'm actually very curious to see what the mainstream is going to do about that recent quasar data. It does falsify their current LCDM model as surely as the SN1A data broke the original big bang model. The logical thing to do would be to go back to the drawing board and reevaluate their whole assertion that redshift is related to expansion, but then astronomers never seem to do the logical thing, and logic has nothing to do with their dogmatic emotional attachment to the expansion model. Still, it's an interesting dilemma for them.

If we go by your very concise description of their bizarre methodology, they'll probably start off by attacking the quasar data for awhile, and eventually they'll add some more irrational claims to the mix about how dark energy increases in density over multiple exponential increases in volume, and they will go further down the conservation of energy defying rabbit hole. They'll just ignore the conservation of energy violations as usual, they'll award some more Nobel prizes to make it seem legit, and viola, they're back in business.

I'm curious to see how they attempt to salvage their BAO claims and their nucleosynthesis predictions while tinkering with the magical properties of dark energy. I don't think they even have a clue how do to that yet which is why there's been such a deafening silence so far in response to that recent quasar study. It should be entertaining at least to watch them scurry around in a pure panic for awhile.

I've also been very amused at the responses I get to my questions to LCDM proponents about their internally inconsistent use of their space expansion claim. It's a sure way to make an astronomer squirm. They usually just avoid the question and pretend that I never asked them about it. Occasionally I get "magic just happens" sort of goofy rationalization, but it's always just as internally inconsistent as the original space expansion claim. The mental gymnastics are a hoot to behold and typically pretty entertaining. :)

The only thing I really feel good about is the fact that the LCDM model has never been in such a vulnerable place and so tattered and torn. The last time their big bang model was broken this badly was about 20 years ago when the SN1A data first came out. Between the endless string of failed dark matter experiments and that new quasar study, the LCDM model is in a world of hurt.

I suppose the metaphysical 'fix" is easier this time around since they won't have to reinvent the whole concept of dark energy and try to sell the public on dark energy from scratch. They can just tinker around with it's metaphysical properties this time. At least they won't be able to relate dark energy back to Einstein's non zero "constant" in a GR formula like they originally did with dark energy, not that it will deter them from trying to turn a constant into a time related variable. At least I'll then get to ask them about their inconsistent misuse of what is supposed to be "constant" in a GR formula however, so the silver lining is that I'll get to have even more fun watching them squirm. :) The internal inconsistencies are really starting to pile up now.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1661
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: There are three stages in scientific discovery...

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:21 pm

The "inflation" is the best of an optical illusion, like a fata-morgana.
Thanks to all available evidence, the optical illusion is now the most likely theory.

I found the following list of evidence:
Redshift caused by free electrons in plasma.
Quasars and pulsars do not follow distance logic.
Dark energy is distributed like clouds or plasma.
The stars and galaxies are much older, even far away ones.
Background radiation is antenna-resonance, water-radiation and point-sources.

But how do you tell people that have believed in the dogma for so many years that it is not
visible in the maths, but in the observations themselves?

I think they will come up with multiple types of dark matter and
types of dark energy which are completely variable.
And they will try to combine this with some multi-verse stuff.
That will be a lot "simpler" and spawn a lot of new "science"-papers.

I do not think that astronomy is a convergent science.

Astronomers ignore basic laboratory observations and can not even get the sun right.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: There are three stages in scientific discovery...

Unread postby Webbman » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:47 am

you forgot the 4th stage.

if your equation doesnt work at first add constants with the right units until it does. That's all dark energy and dark matter is.
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: There are three stages in scientific discovery...

Unread postby neilwilkes » Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:38 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/397226-there-are-three-stages-in-scientific-discovery-first-people-deny

“There are three stages in scientific discovery. First, people deny that it is true, then they deny that it is important; finally they credit the wrong person.” - Bill Bryson


That quote is certainly true in the field of astronomy. Aristarchus of Samos beat Copernicus to the concept of heliocentrism by more than 18 centuries, but Copernicus is given all the credit for the 'discovery". At the moment most of the astronomy community is stuck somewhere between the first and second stages with respect to EU/PC theory. It's only a matter of time before they try to cut Birkeland and Alfven out of the loop. That's how we will know that we're making real progress. :)

Someone posted that quote to a Reddit thread and it made me laugh out loud so I decided to share it here.


It has already started - look up something called "Pedersen Currents" - Birkeland Currents by any other name.
The airbrushing is gathering momentum.
Seehttp://www.issibern.ch/teams/dynamicsgeospace/
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: There are three stages in scientific discovery...

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:05 pm

neilwilkes wrote:It has already started - look up something called "Pedersen Currents" - Birkeland Currents by any other name.
The airbrushing is gathering momentum.
Seehttp://www.issibern.ch/teams/dynamicsgeospace/


How sad. I get the feeling that they intentionally give the credit to the wrong person because they don't want anyone to know how long it took them to figure out their problem even after someone explained it to them.

In the case of Aristarchus of Samos it took them 1800 years after someone explained heliocentrism to them and even put the planets in the right order for them. They're already more than a century late to the party with respect to Birkeland's work at this point and there's no end in sight. The last time I checked the were referring to field aligned (Birkeland) currents in the Earth's upper atmosphere as "Steve".

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/08/s ... -after-all

I used to believe that this kind of thing was an innocent mistake on their part, but I realize now that I've been very naive. It's actually intentional, petty, vindictive and quite malicious.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1661
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: There are three stages in scientific discovery...

Unread postby neilwilkes » Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:39 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
neilwilkes wrote:It has already started - look up something called "Pedersen Currents" - Birkeland Currents by any other name.
The airbrushing is gathering momentum.
Seehttp://www.issibern.ch/teams/dynamicsgeospace/


How sad. I get the feeling that they intentionally give the credit to the wrong person because they don't want anyone to know how long it took them to figure out their problem even after someone explained it to them.

In the case of Aristarchus of Samos it took them 1800 years after someone explained heliocentrism to them and even put the planets in the right order for them. They're already more than a century late to the party with respect to Birkeland's work at this point and there's no end in sight. The last time I checked the were referring to field aligned (Birkeland) currents in the Earth's upper atmosphere as "Steve".

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/08/s ... -after-all

I used to believe that this kind of thing was an innocent mistake on their part, but I realize now that I've been very naive. It's actually intentional, petty, vindictive and quite malicious.



Oh, Good Grief!
Why can they not see what it actually is? I think that you must be right - it has to be deliberate, as that is such a blatant Birkeland Current it is just not funny to see it called a STEVE instead. Insanity! It's just plain rude.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: There are three stages in scientific discovery...

Unread postby Webbman » Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:55 am

i'm not a big wikipedia fan (its horribly corrupt) but it does mention the halls and pedersen currents are at right angles to incoming Birkland currents and they are clearly differentiated. Whether they stay that way and how they describe it elsewhere who knows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: There are three stages in scientific discovery...

Unread postby neilwilkes » Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:13 pm

Maybe Wiki was the wrong thing to link to in hindsight.
That said - where does that article actually mention "pedersen currents" please?
I see no mention whatsoever.....
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: There are three stages in scientific discovery...

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:58 pm

neilwilkes wrote:Oh, Good Grief!
Why can they not see what it actually is? I think that you must be right - it has to be deliberate, as that is such a blatant Birkeland Current it is just not funny to see it called a STEVE instead. Insanity! It's just plain rude.


It's hard to imagine that the whole of astronomy can really be that ignorant. I mean it *is* possible mind you, but it seems very unlikely. If they *really* cannot recognize such an obvious example of a Birkeland current, they're even more ignorant than I ever imagined.

I'm more inclined to believe that they simply refuse to use Birkeland's name for fear of the public starting to catch on to the fact that Birkeland's work is far more important than they give him credit for. I think he's a bit like Voldedmort from their perspective. He just won't go away and they're paranoid that he'll make a comeback. They dare no speak his name. :)

They have the same aversion to giving Alfven any public credit too, lest their entire cosmology charade come crashing down on their heads.

I mean how lame do you have to be to not recognize such an obvious example of a Birkeland current? Steve? Come on!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1661
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: There are three stages in scientific discovery...

Unread postby Webbman » Sat Feb 23, 2019 4:42 am

neilwilkes wrote:Maybe Wiki was the wrong thing to link to in hindsight.
That said - where does that article actually mention "pedersen currents" please?
I see no mention whatsoever.....


underneath the picture
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: There are three stages in scientific discovery...

Unread postby neilwilkes » Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:25 am

Webbman wrote:
neilwilkes wrote:Maybe Wiki was the wrong thing to link to in hindsight.
That said - where does that article actually mention "pedersen currents" please?
I see no mention whatsoever.....


underneath the picture


Gotcha.
However, that image does not gel with the article, and what they call "Pedersen" currents are blatantly Birkeland Currents - it is the same one as the "field aligned" (aka Birkeland) currents yet given a different name.
I guess I should just be thankful they have not called them STEVE's yet!
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: There are three stages in scientific discovery...

Unread postby Sceptical lefty » Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:38 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
neilwilkes wrote:I used to believe that this kind of thing was an innocent mistake on their part, but I realize now that I've been very naive. It's actually intentional, petty, vindictive and quite malicious.


In other words, typical academic behaviour.

People with power, defending the status quo, will fight to the death to avoid having to admit that they totally cocked up.

There are so many pertinent quotes from history that could be inserted here, but I'll make do with Jonathan Swift: "When a true genius appear in this world, you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
Sceptical lefty
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 5:53 pm

Hey look, STEVE is back. :)

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:23 pm

http://spaceweather.com/

Monday, Mar. 4, 2019

STEVE IS BACK: Northern spring is less than 3 weeks away. That means hot ribbons of plasma are starting to flow in Earth's magnetosphere. Ayumi Bakken saw one of them on Feb. 28th over Fairbanks, Alaska:

"STEVE is back!" says Bakken. "This skinny band of light appeared next to the Big Dipper for a few minutes, then faded out rapidly."

STEVE--short for "Strong Thermal Emission Velocity Enhancement"--was long thought to be a type of aurora borealis. But it's not. Auroras appear when particles rain down from space. STEVE, on the other hand, does not require any "rain." Satellite measurements show that it is a hot ribbon of gas speeding through the upper reaches of Earth's magnetic field faster than 10,000 mph.


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

Ah, but it *is* a "type" of aurora, specifically it's a field aligned current called a "Birkeland current". :)

Now they are intentionally avoiding the use of the term charged particle "current" from space. It's now particle "rain" from space. No, a Birkeland current does not require particle "rain", it only requires charged particle "current", just like the aurora. Shessh. It's amazing the lengths that the mainstream will go to in an effort to avoid using the term "current". It's not charged particle "current", it's particle "rain". It's not a Birkeland "current", it's a "STEVE". Either they are scientifically inept, or they are unethically corrupt, one or the other.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1661
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests