The mainstream cannot handle an honest debate on cosmology

[Michael Mozina]

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

Can this dipole be measured electromagnetically? Why isn't a neutron affected by an EM field?

If you have a thread that addresses these questions that you'd like me to read through, I'd be happy to do so over the weekend. I'll sit down and read through your paper this weekend for sure. I'm certainly open to a QM interpretation of gravity, but I'm also fine with GR theory without all the supernatural components. If gravity is a force rather than a geometric curvature, I would expect it to be related to the EM field.

[Bengt Nyman]

Can this dipole be measured electromagnetically? Why isn't a neutron affected by an EM field?

A point charge affected by an EM field is exposed to a measurable force. The effect on a dipole, or a neutron, is much less and depends on the orientation of the dipole axis in relation to the gradient of the field. The force is very weak because of the very small distance between the charges in the dipole. Furthermore, the force on a dipole from another dipole is even weaker because of the very weak composite, resultant field from the second dipole. This very weak but all encounting and reliable force manifests itself as gravity.

GR and SpacTime geometric curvatures are crude attempts to model gravity and totally misses the cause and effect between charges and fields that result in the gravity that we live in.

[Michael Mozina]

The comet thread over at ISF is actually very interesting from the standpoint of psychology.

Nobody really knows exactly what all comets might be made of, what range of elements they might include, etc. We can tell something about the composition of some comets of course, at least to some degree. Whether that means that all comets are "dirty snowballs" is anyone's guess. It is probably not even likely to start with. Asteroids tend to span a wide range of different elemental compositions. Comets probably do too.

Instead of keeping the conversation on topic, and keeping the conversation civil however, the EU/PC "hater posse" over at ISF constantly engages themselves in personal attacks, ad-homs, and name calling. While RC might be the primary instigator of a lot of the trash talk, he's apparently got a superhater-sidekick these days. EU/PC hater RC apparently enjoys a Robin-like figure in JonesDave116. Here's just a few choice word samplings from his last few hater posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=3471
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=3473

JonesDave116:

....idiot....dense....uneducated pillocks like you....Grow up; get an education.....woo...Try to lern scienz. Yes?....

....They do not understand basic science......electric comet' woo.....The bloke is obviously scientifically illiterate.......he fails it......cretin......They were crap at science at school....cretin.....these idiots.....scientifically illiterate 'electric universe' cult.....IMHO anybody that believes that garbage should be removed from the gene pool. However, that is only an opinion.

Removed from the gene pool? You advocate violence because others don't share your beliefs about comets? How nice.

Well JD, if you're attempting to play the role of the "sleazy personal attack dog" like RC, you're learning how to play that disgusting role quite nicely. You've got the whole mob mentality thing down pat, and you've learned from RC how to really "pack in the ad-homs" in every post just like a EU/PC hater pro.

Now all you need to do is explain why your solar and cosmology models *do not* work in the lab, whereas EU/PC models work perfectly.

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

Now of course I have no real "dog in the fight" with comet composition debates since I prefer Birkeland's cathode solar model over Jergen's (Thornhill/Scott's) anode solar model, and I really don't care one iota about comet compositions to be honest. It is however at least interesting from the standpoint of psychology to watch the mainstream's reaction to different beliefs.

They just ignore the fact that their LCDM cult has wasted *BILLIONS* of dollars on multiple dark matter snipe hunts which were all based on bad baryonic mass estimates of distant galaxies. All they can think to discuss and worry about is one comet model from EU/PC theory, while condemning the whole EU/PC cosmology community a 'cult'.

They just ignore that fact that while every aspect of EU/PC theory can be empirically tested in the lab, including various comet theories, they won't be bothered to actually do any exhaustive laboratory testing of comet composition theories because they've already blown their wad on unproductive snipe hunts and they steadfastly refuse to admit any errors at all in their cosmology model.

They just ignore the fact that to even begin to hold "belief" in LCDM one has to suspend logic entirely. One has to begin the indoctrination into the LCDM cult by *assuming* (hold on faith) that even though photons in the lab lose momentum to the plasma medium as they traverse the medium, photons in "space' are magic. Unlike their boring and ordinary laboratory counterparts, photons in space magically weave and dodge their way around every EM and temperature gradient, every dust particle and every plasma particle in spacetime to arrive on Earth without a *shred* of cosmological redshift caused by ordinary scattering in plasma.

They just ignore the fact that to hold belief, and pledge allegiance in the LCDM cultm one also has to begin with holding "blind faith" in the claim that "space expansion" is a real and actual empirical cause of photon redshift without a shred of lab support for that claim, now or ever in the future.

They forget about the fact that to hold belief in the holy LCMD dogma one also has to hold belief in the great "inflation" genie, and dogmatically assert that 95 percent of the universe is composed of invisible stuff that amounts to nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance.

We must forget all those problems with LCMD, and abandon empirical physics for the LCMD cult, or face the wrath of the empirical physics hater cult as they personally attack and verbally abuse the messengers of empirical physics with a vengeance.

JD, you and RC are two bit personal attack bullies. You can't handle an honest scientific debate so you simply *cheat*. Proud of yourselves?

[Bengt Nyman]

Dear Michael,
Spending time and energy bitching about the world is a waste of time and energy and contributes to keeping the Electric Universe on the black list of Physics Operators. The only way that the Electric Universe will be able to reach any standing of credibility is to contribute positively to our understanding of the universe. I do not know what other discoveries or theories that the EU have which are worth promoting to the world, but I suggest that we start with the worthwhile ones and concentrate on that.
I hope that Wallace Thornhill can use his good scientific intuition, overcome his ego and his disdain for Not Invented Here and allow other people to fill in the scientific details beyond his reach to produce meaningful progress.

[Michael Mozina]

Dear Michael,
Spending time and energy bitching about the world is a waste of time and energy and contributes to keeping the Electric Universe on the black list of Physics Operators.

I guess I don't really see it as bitching about the world so much as noting the irrational behaviors that we face and that we have to deal with. EU was a "forbidden topic" at almost all the mainstream websites long before I even heard of the idea, so I doubt that my complaints about mainstream beliefs are the cause of that particular phenomenon. I think that strange behavior is just driven by ignorance and fear.

The only way that the Electric Universe will be able to reach any standing of credibility is to contribute positively to our understanding of the universe. I do not know what other discoveries or theories that the EU have which are worth promoting to the world, but I suggest that we start with the worthwhile ones and concentrate on that.
I hope that Wallace Thornhill can use his good scientific intuition, overcome his ego and his disdain for Not Invented Here and allow other people to fill in the scientific details beyond his reach to produce meaningful progress.

You're definitely right about the need for positive promotion of EU/PC cosmology and solar physics. We can't just negatively attack the mainstream belief systems. I'd say I've been a bit guilty recently of focusing too much on the foolishness of mainstream claims and beliefs, and not spending more time focusing on the positive aspects of EU/PC theory. I could have simply ignored the LIGO problems, but I did feel compelled to at least point out the problems in their methodology. That debate has taken up valuable time and energy, and it's not exactly 'helpful' in terms of promoting EU ideas and concepts.

I have however spent time promoting EU/PC theory on public forums. Even before I even knew of Alfven's work on cosmology theory, I essentially started out by presenting and defending Birkeland's work on solar physics to others around the internet. I did find that process to be fulfilling for the most part, particularly my discussions over at the livescience forums before that forum shut down. I was however rather blown away and dismayed at the reaction to Birkeland's work by the mainstream at most mainstream websites, and their complete unwillingness to even listen to new or different ideas. I was actually stunned that they would not allow them to be discussed openly on their websites.

About 12 years ago, I felt like I stepped into the middle of an ongoing melee between the EU/PC and the mainstream cosmology communities that preceded my introduction to Birkeland's work and Alfven's work. When I first started publicly debating my solar physics beliefs at astronomy websites, I realized that my solar "surface" concepts would be likely to be met with strong skepticism, but I was actually rather surprised at the mainstream's negative reaction to the electrical aspects of Birkeland's model. The electrical part all worked in the lab, so it didn't seem all that "controversial" from my perspective, but the electrical aspects of solar physics theory seemed to generate more negative reaction from the mainstream than the 'rigid surface' concepts. That actually did surprise me. The moment I started discussing electricity as it relates to solar physics, I got "accused" by the mainstream of being an "EU cult follower" even before I knew what the EU community was about, or even knew of it's existence. In fact that's what caused me to check out the EU community in the first place.

I've recently been posting more over at Reddit, and I think I'll start a few threads over there related to Birkeland's work and see how it goes.

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=3482

JonesDave116:
Perhaps we could concentrate on the idiot Thornhill. Yes? Now, who came up with this crap about solar wind creating water (lol)? Who thought that up? Eh? Must have taken a genius, yes? Can you tell when I'm being sarcastic? Eh, Sol? Care to explain it to us? Perhaps the cretin Thornhill is reading, and would like to defend himself from accusations of being scientifically illiterate. Un-bloody-likely, I know.

http://theconversation.com/solar-wind-a ... ests-22212
https://www.space.com/27377-moon-water- ... -wind.html

Are they "idiots" too JD?

Ya know.....

When pure nonsense like that goes completely unchecked as ISF, I can't help but wonder if the mainstream even knows how to use the Google search engine. OMG. Who's scientifically illiterate JD? Has solar wind been linked to water in interplanetary space? Yes? No?

]So, Sol, given that this whole mission has been a complete kick in the ar*e for the EU cretins, what would you suggest next? See if Wal & Dave might not have been lying about asteroids? Carry on believing the rubbish because you have never been to college?

It's clear that the mainstream just cheats in debate with their constant reliance upon ad homs and personal insults. Yawn. You guys have no ethics whatsoever. Proud of yourself?

How about those constant *lies* that you folks keep telling around the internet about Thornhill predicting that *no* water exists on comets, or your lies about Thornhill predicting *no* neutrinos from the sun? How about Bridgman's ridiculous lies about Birkeland predicting that only electrons came from the sun in his cathode solar model? You folks just lie through your teeth whenever you feel like it. Do you believe that bogus crap because you never went to college JD, or just because you're ignorant as hell, with or without a college degree? Your debate style is simply sleazy in the extreme. You're definitely catching up to RC when it comes to unethical debate tactics and practices, and you're also catching up to him quickly in terms of constantly stuffing of your own foot into your mouth.

Do either of you two "brilliant college grads" have that missing math formula yet that I asked for over five years ago to describe a non zero rate of 'reconnection' in Clinger's vacuum contraption? Yes? No? When hell freezes over? So much for the value of all that time that you folks spent in college. Even with Clinger's Phd in math, and all your supposedly superior math skills and college time, you folks can't even collectively come up with one measly math formula to support Clinger's false claim, nor will you folks admit that "reconnection in a vacuum" without particle acceleration is absurdly false. What exactly did you folks study in college anyway?

I give up, seriously I do. Because there is no point in talking to people like you. You believe in fairytales, but you can't do science. Eh? How many years will it take of no results? Forever, eh, Sol? Sad.

Let's talk about "sad" behaviors and fairytales. Considering the mainstream's track record on exotic forms of "dark matter" over the past decade, your hypocrisy factor is totally off scale. Not only is your criticism about solar wind producing water a completely bogus argument, the pure hypocrisy factor is mind-boggling. You've spent *billions* of dollars on your exotic matter snipe hunt, with *years* of nothing but failed results to show for it, yet you folks just turn a blind eye to that problem while you continue to tell fairytales and lies to unsuspecting children. Talk about *sad* behaviors.

On the other hand you'd condemn everyone else for dragging their feet, and living in denial like you do? Simply laughable! It wouldn't be so ironic if your basic argument about the link between solar wind and water wasn't also false, but since solar wind as a source of water *has* been discussed by the mainstream, your argument is just utter nonsense based on pure ignorance, *and* your denial problem is just pure hypocrisy on a stick.

Wow! No wonder we're living in the dark ages of astronomy. RC may be a lost cause JD, but you don't have to be. Don't go down that dark path JD. It just makes you look as foolish as RC.

[nick c]

JonesDave116:
Perhaps we could concentrate on the idiot Thornhill. Yes? Now, who came up with this crap about solar wind creating water (lol)? Who thought that up? Eh?

And don't forget the "idiots" at NASA:
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch14.htm

The assumption of ices as important bonding materials in cometary nuclei rests in almost all cases on indirect evidence, specifically the observation of atomic hydrogen (Lyman [Greek letter] alpha emission) and hydroxyl radical in a vast cloud surrounding the comet, in some cases accompanied by observation of H20+ or neutral water molecules. In addition, CH3CN, HCN, and corresponding radicals and ions are common constituents of the cometary gas envelope. These observations can be rationalized by assuming (Delsemme, 1972; Mendis, 1973) that the cometary nuclei consist of loose agglomerates containing, in addition to silicates (observed by infrared spectrometry (Maas et al., 1970)) and also water ice with inclusions of volatile carbon and nitrogen compounds.

It has been suggested by Lal (1972b) that the Lyman a emission could be caused by solar wind hydrogen, thermalized on the particles in the dust cloud surrounding the comet. Experiments by Arrhenius and Andersen (1973) irradiating calcium aluminosilicate (anorthite) surfaces with protons in the 10-keV range resulted in a substantial (~10 percent) yield of hydroxyl ion and also hydroxyl ion complexes such as CaOH.
Observations on the lunar surface (Hapke et al., 1970; Epstein and Taylor, 1970, 1972) also demonstrate that such proton-assisted abstraction of oxygen (preferentially O16) from silicates is an active process in space, resulting in a flux of OH and related species. In cometary particle streams, new silicate surfaces would relatively frequently be exposed by fracture and fusion at grain collision. The production of hydroxyl radicals and ions would in this case not be rate-limited by surface saturation to the same extent as on the Moon (for lunar soil turnover rate, see Arrhenius et al. (1972)).

These observations, although not negating the possible occurrence of water ice in cometary nuclei, point also to refractory sources of the actually observed hydrogen and hydroxyl. Solar protons as well as the products of their reaction with silicate oxygen would interact with any solid carbon and nitrogen compounds characteristic of carbonaceous chondrites to yield volatile carbon and nitrogen radicals such as observed in comets. Phenomena such as "flares," "breakups," "high-velocity jets," and nongravitational [236] acceleration are all phenomena that fit well into a theory ascribing them to the evaporation of frozen volatiles. However, with different semantic labels the underlying observations would also seem to be interpretable as manifestations of the focusing and dispersion processes in the cometary region of the meteor stream, accompanied by solar wind interaction.

highlight added

[Michael Mozina]

It seems to me that there's really no way for mainstream astronomers to keep up this metaphysical charade a whole lot longer. Maybe they can go another decade at the most?

It's bad enough that astronomers are incapable of handling an open and honest debate on the internet, but they can't hide from their dark matter problem, and their multimessenger astronomy problem forever. They can ban their skeptics on their websites all they like, but they still have to make good on some scientific 'predictions' soon or later.

Even *assuming* that LIGO eventually pans out in the mainstream's favor, the mainstream still needs some kind of cosmology victory soon, or their invisible universe charade is going to blow up in their face starting with exotic matter claims. How many times can they keep pouring money down deep holes in the ground, find absolutely nothing, and go back for more funding? It's starting to look ridiculous already, and LUX-LZ and Xenon-1T will push WIMP models down into the neutrino cross section of particle interaction.

If LIGO "discovery" claims ultimately do go down in flames, which I believe is highly likely, it probably will speed along the destruction of the mainstream cosmology dogma as the public starts to become ever more "skeptical" of astronomers. The more that LIGO cries invisible big black hole wolf to the public, the worse it will look for everyone involved. They now have three detectors online, significantly improving their ability to triangulate better, and they have a dedicated telescope at their disposal. There aren't many more excuses for LIGO not delivering on their promise of multimessenger astronomy at this point. They can drag out their next upgrades for another year, but the clock is already ticking.

The cold dark matter proponents are financially and professionally committed to LUX-LZ and Xenon-1T experiments, and LUX-LZ won't even come online for a few years. LIGO is going to shut down for upgrades after the 25th of this month, and it won't start up again until the fall of 2018. Unless Xenon-1T comes up with a miracle over the next 12 months, it's going to be a long next year for the mainstream. Nothing much is likely to change, but the heat will be building throughout the next year. The pressure to deliver on multimessenger astronomy will become extremely intense once LIGO comes back online next fall, and the pressure to find exotic matter will become critical once LUX-LZ goes online.

The last decade was a real 'bummer" for big budget mainstream astronomy. They spent billions hunting for exotic matter and they found nothing. They also spent hundreds of millions of dollars on LIGO upgrades with the promise of multimessenger astronomy and they still haven't delivered on that promise either. Big money astronomy budgets didn't produce much in the way of visible or tangible results over the past decade, and the next decade doesn't look to be any more promising for them either.

Something has to give on dark matter and multimessenger astronomy sooner or later.

The really interesting big money project that is finally coming to fruition, and the one big bright spot for astronomy over the next few years looks to be the Webb Telescope. Unfortunately for the mainstream, I think that they're likely to continue to be 'surprised' by it's observations. Whether the Webb telescope is the straw the finally breaks the camels back, or their saving grace remains to be seen, but it's bound to change the way we perceive the universe.

It should be an interesting decade.

[prioris55555]

The ONLY reason why the big bang theory is the dominate theory in astronomy is because the global power structures want it that way. They are fully cognizant it is a lie. Astronomers have not much say is what theory will be supported. Most astronomers are like the general population. With enough rewards, they will go along with the lie. They could get astronomers to agree that moon is made out of swiss cheese if it was important enough. The ones in the loop know it is a lie but they follow orders. At the lowest levels, many get brainwashed. It's most people's nature to live as a compartmentalized cog so living the lie is the norm. There are a spectrum of people with many motivations on why they go along with the lie. Jobs, career and research funding keep many people in line. Those powers having the power to kill people with impunity helps too. Those power structures have leverage over the key people related to astronomy. They will also control virtually all the media so have their gatekeepers at scientific journals.

If the powers that be didn't interfere with the public scientific pursuit behind the scenes, natural forces would have swept away the big bang a long time ago. Edwin Hubble dropped his support for the big bang in 1937. That should have been the start of the collapse. The real science has always been conducted in secrecy for the powers that be. Public science is generally for public consumption. Suppression has been coordinated on a large scale. It needs the military intelligence agencies to carry out the dirty work. They don't care about theories or models. Almost all the discussion of this in the last 100 years focuses on egos, personalities etc as the cause while ignoring the man behind the curtain pulling the levers. Egos and personalities can have some minor effect for short period of time but not on such a large vast time scale and global scope. it requires state involvement for that.

[Bengt Nyman]

Correct. Remember that 99.99 percent of mankind do not know and do not care, however they contribute to the inertia that serves the powers that be.
Only that which becomes a useful vehicle to those in power will be dubbed official science. It takes several generations before younger scientists dare and manage to force some progress.
I know of one recent nobel prize winner who regrets his forty year old "discovery" because he has since come to a different and better understanding of our universe, which most likely will never become public knowledge.

[Metryq]

Those powers having the power to kill people with impunity helps too.

Of course! It should have been so obvious to me before! The key voices for Thunderbolts are all old guys, so they're not afraid of death at their age. /sarc

Seek help.

[prioris55555]

The powers that be have always shown the truth to those who want to know. In the foreground is the big bang. In the background is the Electric Universe. The truth is constantly seeping out whether by them or natural forces. Even though they lie with one hand, they let enough truth to seep out with other hand for the folks who really want to know and are willing to put 2 and 2 together. They can even throw in disinfo to create inertia.

As more space data accumulates, the big bang folks can tear their hair out while the electric universe folks just integrate the observation into their model. Wal is the type of person who is more interested in the truth than a model.

The plain reality is that most people simply don't give a ffffff about the truth. How many times you hear parents complain about all the lies their kids are learning in schools. Almost never. They are proud of Johnny or Suzy making the honor roll. Their content lapping up the shit. If their feed for the NFL network goes down - that could be a crisis.The big bang theory is for them.

[Bengt Nyman]

Electric Universe criticism of The Standard Model is a waste of time and energy. The Standard Model is what it is, partially science, partially politics and partially purposely unclear for various reasons. The Standard Model will continue to evolve when evidence and consensus prompts it to do so. I believe that the Electric Universe, and its members, have the same opportunity to contribute to the advancement of science as everybody else. To expect to be listened to and respected without offering any substantial contributions to how the universe works suggests a lack of understanding of how the world works.

[Michael Mozina]

Electric Universe criticism of The Standard Model is a waste of time and energy. The Standard Model is what it is, partially science, partially politics and partially purposely unclear for various reasons. The Standard Model will continue to evolve when evidence and consensus prompts it to do so. I believe that the Electric Universe, and its members, have the same opportunity to contribute to the advancement of science as everybody else. To expect to be listened to and respected without offering any substantial contributions to how the universe works suggests a lack of understanding of how the world works.

I think there is some truth to that position and to that criticism, but that criticism and position works both ways. The mainstream seems hell bent on publicly criticizing EU/PC theory in the most hostile and sometimes even in the most *dishonest* manners possible. They consistently refuse to publish alternative ideas in their mainstream publications, or to even allow the discussion of alternative ideas on their websites. All the while they have failed to offer the public any substantial contributions and *real* explanations about how the universe actually works.

I think they *need* a good swift public kick in the pants. They need some open criticism and skepticism of the fact that in 2017, they're *still* using 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe most of their cosmological belief system, and the rest of their mathematics are based on pure 'pseudoscience' according to Alfven.

What exactly is there to "lose" by exploring new possibilities which are based on pure empirical physics for a change?

When I see them say absurd and ignorant things on their blogs, like EU solar theory predicts "no neutrinos", or that Birkeland promoted three different solar models or he predicted that only electrons come from the sun, I want to hurl, and then I want to wring their collective necks! Unless they're all 100 percent clueless and completely ignorant of the *most basic* aspects of EU/PC theory, some of them have to *know* that such claims are ridiculously and completely false. Even still, not a single professional lifts a finger to publicly correct another professional's blatant *misconduct* in public. Who else will do the dirty work of extolling the virtues of empirical physics, and pointing out the weaknesses of metaphysics, if the so called professionals fail to police themselves or educate themselves?

Birkeland and his team *personally* demonstrated and explained more important aspects and predictions of solar atmospheric physics in the lab over 100 years ago, than the collective efforts of every other solar astrophysicist to date. That's the *empirical physical* fact.

Mathematically speaking the mainstream still relies upon a form of pseudoscience to explain high energy events in light plasma, only because they are utterly and totally electrophobic. Any suggestion of adding electric fields to a solar model frightens them to death, and causes them to go into an instant online tizzy! They throw a complete hissy-fit the moment anyone even mentions the addition of electric fields to solar physics on their websites! How can scientific progress occur when the mainstream's electrophobia prevents them from leaving the realm of pseudoscience behind, and joining the realm of empirical physics?

Someone has to point out their numerous problems, since they refuse to even spend a dime recreating Birkeland's experiments. Meanwhile they are wasting billions of dollars of public taxpayer money on an exotic matter snipe hunt that was based entirely upon their *horrifically flawed baryonic mass estimates of galaxies* to start with!

It's not just their belief system that needs to be replaced, it's their whole 'mathier than thou' attitude that has to go. Real empirical physics actually works in the lab, whereas their mathematical "make-believe" models do not ever work in the lab. The collective wisdom of the mainstream can't even generate a full sphere corona in a lab yet for God sake! How long do I have wait around for them to figure out something that was already explained and demonstrated in a lab over century ago, or for them to simply acknowledge the scientific legitimacy of Birkeland's solution to their "coronal heating problem"?

I think as taxpayers we have a constitutional right and duty to publicly bust their metaphysical chops and demand that they return to the realm of real physics when spending our tax dollars. If we don't publicly demand better from them, nobody will. Sure, we can do all the heavy lifting all by ourselves, build our own publication channels all by ourselves ect, but then *we* should be getting the millions and billions of dollars of public funding, not them.

The mainstream is welcome to explore their metaphysical "faith" on their own dime and their own time, on Sunday in the the "dark matter/energy" church for all I care, but when it comes to public funding, we should only be paying for empirical physical results which actually *work* in the lab.

[prioris55555]

Electric Universe is made up of many people. What each wants to say and how they want to say something should be up to them. Whether they criticize the standard model or not in their analysis is not important since it won't effect whether they will be listened to or respected. The only group who will get listened to are the ones with power and funders. If Wal becomes the galactic ruler, astronomers all over the world will bow down to Wal. They will think Wal is a cool guy. They will tell Wal that they were pigheaded but now see the EU light.

The Thunderbolts YouTube channel is a giant class room for many in the world. Lot of young future astronomers will be greatly influenced by that.