Michael Mozina wrote:...the LCDM model is virtually useless in terms of making successful predictions about the outcome of laboratory experimentation, whereas most EU/PC concepts tend to work in the lab. Whether EU/PC models/ideas are applicable to events in space may still remain to be seen, but unlike LCDM, the core tenets of EU/PC tend to work in the lab.
...
Some LCDM concepts like dark matter have been studied/tested in the lab to the point of absurdity, and yet not a single "prediction' of that hypothesis has born any empirical fruit, even after spending billions of dollars testing various dark matter models. In just the last thirty days, three different experiments all reported null results for two different hypothetical definitions of dark matter, and LHC already blew their most popular mathematical models right out of the water.
...
There is in fact a huge empirical difference between the two competing cosmology models in terms of how they work in the lab.
It's that trend and phenomenon that most drive home the differences between the two models. The standard model is simply outdated. It's only attraction is its own momentum. Therefore, how to get to the position where the EU/PC model is accepted only calls for the realization that since the standard model is wrecked, it must be observed as such and the question should immediately arise as to whether there's a better candidate.
And there is! How luxurious is that, that a sensible, rational, reasonable alternative already exists and that its underlying premises are so robust?
It's rather striking that the standard model cannot defend itself except by habitual negative reaction to its inevitable replacement. That's partisanship, not science. Partisans are found all over the fields, especially where the heavily mainstreamed assumptions about their purported or ostensible sciences overlap them. I can name four major areas where the mainstream, at least, is simply wrong on points, facts, and especially, on trajectory and the future of associated knowledge. The mainstream is for the fields a press release engine, a marketing arm, a church, and a congregation of their faithful. It is decidedly not real, applied
knowledge.
So it happens. And the old takes a long, long time to die, especially where industries, institutes, cash flows, and careers are concerned.
Michael Mozina wrote:More importantly, most "magnetic reconnection" experiments in the lab begin and end with an electric field which ultimately powers the process.
That's a stunning realization. The mainstream is building models based on assumptions that it apparently feels don't even have to reflect a whole paradigm - if we just make X work in a limited environment surely we can make that limited environment fit some larger, more complete future picture. We're carrying on this heroic work of ours in large part out of our own hidebound faith in our own scientific nobility. Look; we're even brave enough to admit what we don't know, at least if we can admit it without tarnishing our image or reputation or trajectory.
It's astounding. On the other hand, heretics tend not to fare well and given that these are
belief systems, who's going to break out first?
Meanwhile, the universe is obviously powered. Since actions, states, and properties define it, and since all are active, if it weren't powered it couldn't exist. The universe therefore violates the purported laws within it against self-spontaneity, no matter how spectacular the math can be written to be. This is a
philosophical question having far too little to do with real, applied knowledge - which is science - to actually be scientific: What motivates all Forces?! What encircles the nucleus with electrons so utterly and mysteriously faithful that they never break their own rules? What is attraction? What is instantaneous interaction regardless of displacement? What underlies what Newton codified?
None of the underlying forces have any explanation and this is acceptable to a
science that purports to deem itself sufficient to propose a sensible version of an entire
universe wherein the primary assumption is some master-key particle like a Higgs? (As I recall the LHC blew its own premise apart when it nullified not one but both conventional universes, at lease when taken by its original premise. Even if it hadn't, what's the relationship between particles whereby they gain all their properties, and how isn't that just another endless stack of turtles?)
Or this is acceptable to a science that purports to deem itself sufficient to propose a sensible version of the universe wherein the primary assumption is
self-creation? It's flabbergasting. Given that this isn't strict science, when are the exiled philosophers allowed to return to the city wrecked by its own inhabitants?
To wit:
Michael Mozina wrote:What really bothers and upsets me is that the mainstream doesn't adopt a more "live and let live" attitude...
If they were more gracious in terms of allowing proponents of competing models to present those alternative models to the public, it wouldn't be so "jarring" as you put it. As it stands, the mainstream controls every aspect of the presentation of various ideas and they tend to misrepresent the ideas which they don't agree with.
Exactly. Taken as a sum, it's beyond bizarre. The only reason it stands is because the average plebe doesn't have the interest or the background to ask these questions and demand answers. Even religious types now widely promote the Big Bang as having fallen right out of the first pages of Genesis. They mightily resist challenges to that new faith. Partisanship holds these structures together even while they're touted as and presumed to be established knowledge.