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.
