'Welease Wosetta!'

[nick c]

If it is more or less homogeneous, then probably its material resembles something like expanded clay aggregate, or aerated concrete.

... or it could be a geode-type thing, hollow on the inside.

My hunch is that it is a reasonably solid rock, but according to Wal Thornhill mass is a variable function of matter.
see:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric- ... -universe/
Which means that current methods for density calculations and conclusions about the interiors of celestial bodies are not necessarily reliable.

If the peanut shape is a result of electrical sculpting, then apparently the process excavates material in a manner that (pinch?) creates a waist like or hour glass shape. The peanut shape seems to be quite common for these smaller celestial bodies...asteroids and comets. Also, if that process continues then I would expect the object to form into two separate objects traveling together, as the waist gets smaller and eventually breaks. This could explain how these smaller objects break up, since it has been noted that asteroids and comets are often found to be multiple pieces. Maybe we will get lucky with the timing, and actually witness the breakup of a comet!

[viscount aero]

If it is more or less homogeneous, then probably its material resembles something like expanded clay aggregate, or aerated concrete.

... or it could be a geode-type thing, hollow on the inside.

My hunch is that it is a reasonably solid rock, but according to Wal Thornhill mass is a variable function of matter.
see:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric- ... -universe/
Which means that current methods for density calculations and conclusions about the interiors of celestial bodies are not necessarily reliable.

If the peanut shape is a result of electrical sculpting, then apparently the process excavates material in a manner that (pinch?) creates a waist like or hour glass shape. The peanut shape seems to be quite common for these smaller celestial bodies...asteroids and comets. Also, if that process continues then I would expect the object to form into two separate objects traveling together, as the waist gets smaller and eventually breaks. This could explain how these smaller objects break up, since it has been noted that asteroids and comets are often found to be multiple pieces. Maybe we will get lucky with the timing, and actually witness the breakup of a comet!

I agree:

• it's not a geode
• mass calculations are presently all over the map due to long held presumptions being shattered--they are conflicted
• the body was actually eroded/etched away, like a sculpture being "liberated" from a marble block--but this will never be discussed in any press release
• bodies break apart after they are etched too weak--but that idea will never occur to them
• the mainstream will insist in its perpetual and astonishing ignorance that the two lobes are "impact events" that "merged from an impact" and that the paralleling grooves and channels are all from "torque" and "impact merging"
• the mainstream is finding their self-sustained myopia disturbing as they desperately try to cling to everything on the surface somehow deriving from "bombardments" and "multiple impacts", "wind erosion", "flood events", "snow","quantum foam," and "gravity anomalies"
• the mainstream will insist that the density anomalies--too dense or too light--are connected to "liquid oceans" and "snow" no matter what the density readings are; the comet will be declared the probable culprit "for seeding the Earth's oceans" even as zero evidence for this will be found here
• all data will be written into press releases hereafter as being "on target" and "successful" as the new findings are declared "further evidence" for "Earth's oceans" and "the origin of water in the early universe"
* the "snow mixed with dirt" cometary model will be reaffirmed and declared truer than ever with Rosetta's findings even as the evidence actually points farther and farther away from that model
• on the next cometary mission--whenever that is--cometary scientists will be "baffled" at how the terrain looks just like this comet and is not a smooth snowball---which will be further evidence for them that the snowy dirtball theory is true

[Rossim]

If it is more or less homogeneous, then probably its material resembles something like expanded clay aggregate, or aerated concrete.

... or it could be a geode-type thing, hollow on the inside.

My hunch is that it is a reasonably solid rock, but according to Wal Thornhill mass is a variable function of matter.
see:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric- ... -universe/
Which means that current methods for density calculations and conclusions about the interiors of celestial bodies are not necessarily reliable.

If the peanut shape is a result of electrical sculpting, then apparently the process excavates material in a manner that (pinch?) creates a waist like or hour glass shape. The peanut shape seems to be quite common for these smaller celestial bodies...asteroids and comets. Also, if that process continues then I would expect the object to form into two separate objects traveling together, as the waist gets smaller and eventually breaks. This could explain how these smaller objects break up, since it has been noted that asteroids and comets are often found to be multiple pieces. Maybe we will get lucky with the timing, and actually witness the breakup of a comet!

I agree:

• it's not a geode
• mass calculations are presently all over the map due to long held presumptions being shattered--they are conflicted
• the body was actually eroded/etched away, like a sculpture being "liberated" from a marble block--but this will never be discussed in any press release
• bodies break apart after they are etched too weak--but that idea will never occur to them
• the mainstream will insist in its perpetual and astonishing ignorance that the two lobes are "impact events" that "merged from an impact" and that the paralleling grooves and channels are all from "torque" and "impact merging"
• the mainstream is finding their self-sustained myopia disturbing as they desperately try to cling to everything on the surface somehow deriving from "bombardments" and "multiple impacts", "wind erosion", "flood events", "snow","quantum foam," and "gravity anomalies"
• the mainstream will insist that the density anomalies--too dense or too light--are connected to "liquid oceans" and "snow" no matter what the density readings are; the comet will be declared the probable culprit "for seeding the Earth's oceans" even as zero evidence for this will be found here
• all data will be written into press releases hereafter as being "on target" and "successful" as the new findings are declared "further evidence" for "Earth's oceans" and "the origin of water in the early universe"
* the "snow mixed with dirt" cometary model will be reaffirmed and declared truer than ever with Rosetta's findings even as the evidence actually points farther and farther away from that model
• on the next cometary mission--whenever that is--cometary scientists will be "baffled" at how the terrain looks just like this comet and is not a smooth snowball---which will be further evidence for them that the snowy dirtball theory is true

Well that seems a bit pessimistic lol. I think the mainstream will stick with their perspective until our extraordinary claim is met with extraordinary evidence. When the discharge begins to occur in a more visible fashion I believe they will be able to logically retract their dirty snowball hypothesis. My only concern would be if the Rosetta orbiter fails due to electrical stresses, the snowball idea would survive and we would be doomed until another possible smoking gun experiment.

[viscount aero]

If it is more or less homogeneous, then probably its material resembles something like expanded clay aggregate, or aerated concrete.

... or it could be a geode-type thing, hollow on the inside.

My hunch is that it is a reasonably solid rock, but according to Wal Thornhill mass is a variable function of matter.
see:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric- ... -universe/
Which means that current methods for density calculations and conclusions about the interiors of celestial bodies are not necessarily reliable.

If the peanut shape is a result of electrical sculpting, then apparently the process excavates material in a manner that (pinch?) creates a waist like or hour glass shape. The peanut shape seems to be quite common for these smaller celestial bodies...asteroids and comets. Also, if that process continues then I would expect the object to form into two separate objects traveling together, as the waist gets smaller and eventually breaks. This could explain how these smaller objects break up, since it has been noted that asteroids and comets are often found to be multiple pieces. Maybe we will get lucky with the timing, and actually witness the breakup of a comet!

I agree:

• it's not a geode
• mass calculations are presently all over the map due to long held presumptions being shattered--they are conflicted
• the body was actually eroded/etched away, like a sculpture being "liberated" from a marble block--but this will never be discussed in any press release
• bodies break apart after they are etched too weak--but that idea will never occur to them
• the mainstream will insist in its perpetual and astonishing ignorance that the two lobes are "impact events" that "merged from an impact" and that the paralleling grooves and channels are all from "torque" and "impact merging"
• the mainstream is finding their self-sustained myopia disturbing as they desperately try to cling to everything on the surface somehow deriving from "bombardments" and "multiple impacts", "wind erosion", "flood events", "snow","quantum foam," and "gravity anomalies"
• the mainstream will insist that the density anomalies--too dense or too light--are connected to "liquid oceans" and "snow" no matter what the density readings are; the comet will be declared the probable culprit "for seeding the Earth's oceans" even as zero evidence for this will be found here
• all data will be written into press releases hereafter as being "on target" and "successful" as the new findings are declared "further evidence" for "Earth's oceans" and "the origin of water in the early universe"
* the "snow mixed with dirt" cometary model will be reaffirmed and declared truer than ever with Rosetta's findings even as the evidence actually points farther and farther away from that model
• on the next cometary mission--whenever that is--cometary scientists will be "baffled" at how the terrain looks just like this comet and is not a smooth snowball---which will be further evidence for them that the snowy dirtball theory is true

Well that seems a bit pessimistic lol. I think the mainstream will stick with their perspective until our extraordinary claim is met with extraordinary evidence. When the discharge begins to occur in a more visible fashion I believe they will be able to logically retract their dirty snowball hypothesis. My only concern would be if the Rosetta orbiter fails due to electrical stresses, the snowball idea would survive and we would be doomed until another possible smoking gun experiment.

Consider that solar system/planet creation theory has been solidly disproven but the mainstream continues to publish and teach nebular collapse theory despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It is to the point where literal disproof is irrelevant.

[Metryq]

I think the mainstream will stick with their perspective until our extraordinary claim is met with extraordinary evidence.

Consider that solar system/planet creation theory has been solidly disproven but the mainstream continues to publish and teach nebular collapse theory despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It is to the point where literal disproof is irrelevant.

The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" platitude is a circular and specious argument for the status quo. If "extraordinary" is to mean anything other than a judgment call, it must be defined. "Something outside the realm of established science" might be one definition, but then it excludes everything outside of established science, and the quest for knowledge stagnates. Consider how many times some "extraordinary" paper was shot down in peer review. I think everyone here is familiar with Hannes Alfven and Halton Arp, to name just two.

As Viscount Aero noted, the establishment often does not even want to "look through the telescope" at the "extraordinary evidence."

[Rossim]

From basic observations of a comet with the naked eye, a dirty snowball hypothesis is a very logical idea. Unfortunately, the more detailed observations we make, the weaker that idea becomes. The problem is that the observations thus far have only been contradictory enough to warrant an adjusting of the current theory, rather than abolishment. So by "extraordinary" I mean that the evidence required to shift a paradigm must appear definitive beyond all reasonable doubt. At this point with modern cosmology, if a comet nucleus is clearly dry and dusty it is easier to accept the claim that there is a dust layer on the snowball rather than it is to throw away everything you've learned and accept the idea that the cometary phenomena is not due to sublimation.

It seems like you guys, ViscountAero and Metryq, are both barking at your own tail. Simply stating how some observation of the universe is electrical in nature and bickering with non-supporters doesn't get anywhere, you should instead try to understand your opposition and think of how to get them to understand you. Identify details in peer reviewed journals that signify electrical influence instead of just lecturing concepts. I was once a believer in dark matter, dark energy, dirty snowballs etc because I didn't know any other ideas existed. I've spoken with several physics professors and none of them had even heard of plasma cosmology, EU, or its ideas. Usually they assume nothing is wrong with the current theory so why look elsewhere?

[viscount aero]

From basic observations of a comet with the naked eye, a dirty snowball hypothesis is a very logical idea. Unfortunately, the more detailed observations we make, the weaker that idea becomes. The problem is that the observations thus far have only been contradictory enough to warrant an adjusting of the current theory, rather than abolishment.

Virtually zero evidence for any comet having an icy composition from both visual and subsurface observations are not enough to disprove the dirty snowball theory? Direct observation of bone dry cometary bodies is not enough?

That would be like going up to a black African, in Africa, speaking Swahili and saying that he is of Caucasian descent and probably from Norway. This condition exists in astronomy and cosmology today. There exits staggering walls of evidence against most major theories yet they remain intact, appearing as new in press releases, and taught in schools. It goes far beyond a mere mathematical model obsession [love for models that cannot actually represent a real condition]. It extends to actual observations that instantly contradict a theory.

As much as Rosetta is exciting it is also sadly demonstrative of a profoundly incorrigible and ignorant state of the sciences.

So by "extraordinary" I mean that the evidence required to shift a paradigm must appear definitive beyond all reasonable doubt.

But that is not the standard whatsoever to which science itself holds itself. Read my above statements over and over again For example, as I've stated beforehand, data gathered over the past ten years and particularly recently has already beyond "a shadow of a doubt" disproven core accretion theory completely and absolutely. Yet nebular collapse remains a viable theory? Why? I will tell you why: The standard to which science itself holds itself is not as you say. Therefore your statement is false, disingenuous, and glib.

What happens today is that someone has a bright idea. And they say: "We have grave concern and belief that what created the comet was an invisible pink unicorn. We will send out massive press releases and teach this new principle across the world. And we will require extraordinary evidence and proof that the invisible pink unicorns are not there for us to stop talking about the invisible pink unicorn theory." That is the essence of what you are defending in your comments.

At this point with modern cosmology, if a comet nucleus is clearly dry and dusty it is easier to accept the claim that there is a dust layer on the snowball rather than it is to throw away everything you've learned and accept the idea that the cometary phenomena is not due to sublimation.

Ok but that's exactly the point: They haven't learned a damn thing. What have they learned that is so precious as to "throw away everything they've learned "

It seems like you guys, ViscountAero and Metryq, are both barking at your own tail. Simply stating how some observation of the universe is electrical in nature and bickering with non-supporters doesn't get anywhere...

Are you kidding me? This is about clear and present observations that a comet is NOT an icy body whatsoever as evidenced from overwhelming data over the past ten years at least. That doesn't even touch on electrical theory yet. Your line of reasoning is likewise emblematic of the entire problem.

...you should instead try to understand your opposition and think of how to get them to understand you.

That is laughable, friend. I won't even reply to that.

Identify details in peer reviewed journals that signify electrical influence instead of just lecturing concepts. I was once a believer in dark matter, dark energy, dirty snowballs etc because I didn't know any other ideas existed. I've spoken with several physics professors and none of them had even heard of plasma cosmology, EU, or its ideas. Usually they assume nothing is wrong with the current theory so why look elsewhere?

Are you in a cave, mate? Go to phys.org and see how EU proponents are treated by both laypeople and physics professionals. Your statement is, again, disingenuous and false.

[Rossim]

Like I said, you're barking at your own tail. I think you're just looking to argue for the sake of it, since I already agree with you. Yeah I've been to several physics forums and was banned for being a crackpot after asking why there seems to be animosity against EU theories. But then what do you do? Run to a forum with people who agree with you only to roll yours eyes at mainstream theories and their failure to acknowledge evidence of electrical influence? That seems counter-productive to me. Scientists aren't against EU theories because of some Einsteinian conspiracy, they just think we're wrong.

I agree with all of your statements, but disagree with your condescending attitude, both towards mainstream science and myself. They are intelligent people who were aware of enough indirect "supporting evidence" that further observations only add to the complexity rather than rethinking the entire theory... and that's a problem of which I am all too aware. If they see discharges creating craters in the nucleus, I think at that point the scientists are perceptive enough to abandon the old theory.

[viscount aero]

Like I said, you're barking at your own tail. I think you're just looking to argue for the sake of it, since I already agree with you. Yeah I've been to several physics forums and was banned for being a crackpot after asking why there seems to be animosity against EU theories. But then what do you do? Run to a forum with people who agree with you only to roll yours eyes at mainstream theories and their failure to acknowledge evidence of electrical influence? That seems counter-productive to me. Scientists aren't against EU theories because of some Einsteinian conspiracy, they just think we're wrong.

I'm not even talking about a conspiracy. That's a giant leap of logic to put words where they don't exist. Who gave you that idea?

Conspiracy would denote intelligence to carry out. We're talking about profound levels of stupidity.

Discussion, moreover, on a forum is not at all pointless when ideas among like-minded people can be freely shared. In time the old guard will fall under its own weight. Until then we must form subcultures.

But you are implying, seemingly, that sites like this are "pointless" and "animals eating their own tails." So what is the alternative? To go onto phys.org and have like-minded people there gang up on and ban people like those who visit this site? Is this what you're saying? If not then that is exactly what it sounds like. To that, if true, you seem to not be thinking very deeply in this discussion which is why I have taken time to speak out against your posts. You're implying that this whole site and its belief paradigm is a waste of time, comprising merely of people "rolling their eyes." This is really how you see this site?

And I don't understand your comments about dissenting opinions:

One could say, too, that any debate is having an argument for the sake of it. Why do you imply this?

When can anyone debate, then? Is debate a bad idea? I only went on your replies which carry the strong fragrance of shilling for the belief systems that you allege to stand against. But go to phys.org and have a "debate" and see how far you get. They will eventually ban you there. But mainstream people have come here and have debated, many respectfully, and they have not been banned for dissenting opinions. What does that reveal, then? Why would phys.org and even Wikipedia audit, edit, and ban anything not conforming to mainstream theories that are clearly false?

But I will give you benefit of the doubt. We take all types here.

[Rossim]

I'm not even talking about a conspiracy. That's a giant leap of logic to put words where they don't exist. Who gave you that idea?
Conspiracy would denote intelligence to carry out. We're talking about profound levels of stupidity.

Well I believe (and you as well) most mainstream scientists have a preconceived idea of the way the universe works and they're looking solely for confirmations. In that light, yes, they have intelligence to carry out just as two lobes of a comet nucleus are immediately deemed gravitationally merging bodies.

I believe you're being ignorant when you claim that some of the world's most intelligent people are displaying "profound levels of stupidity." That adds to why EU ideas are met with hostility when discussing them with non-supporters. The scientists are misinterpreting the data because many aspects of the theories are victims of convergent observations, which from our perspective in the universe two completely different theories could predict the same outcome. Of course, this is where Ockham's razor would help identify the more probable reality if it were properly followed.

Discussion, moreover, on a forum is not at all pointless when ideas among like-minded people can be freely shared. In time the old guard will fall under its own weight. Until then we must form subcultures.

But you are implying, seemingly, that sites like this are "pointless" and "animals eating their own tails." So what is the alternative? To go onto phys.org and have like-minded people there gang up on and ban people like those who visit this site? Is this what you're saying? If not then that is exactly what it sounds like. To that, if true, you seem to not be thinking very deeply in this discussion which is why I have taken time to speak out against your posts. You're implying that this whole site and its belief paradigm is a waste of time, comprising merely of people "rolling their eyes." This is really how you see this site?

My comment was not aimed at the site at all, merely at your "barking". I commend the ThunderboltsProject and its effort to educate the community against much ridicule. While many of your comments are well-thought and accurate, they all seem to have a pessimistic, satirical attitude. It was this attribute which I believe is counter productive as your value could be better used in more thought-provoking discussion.

And I don't understand your comments about dissenting opinions:

One could say, too, that any debate is having an argument for the sake of it. Why do you imply this?

When can anyone debate, then? Is debate a bad idea? I only went on your replies which carry the strong fragrance of shilling for the belief systems that you allege to stand against. But go to phys.org and have a "debate" and see how far you get. They will eventually ban you there. But mainstream people have come here and have debated, many respectfully, and they have not been banned for dissenting opinions. What does that reveal, then? Why would phys.org and even Wikipedia audit, edit, and ban anything not conforming to mainstream theories that are clearly false?

Nope, dissenting opinions are no problem at all and debates are great to have. I was just startled by your apparent aversion to my comment when I agree with your views of EU theory and mainstream ignorance, though with a much less harsh and condescending attitude. This current paradigm shift is an incredible example of the misuse of the scientific method, whose transformation will be studied in the future similar to that of the geocentric dogma.

But I will give you benefit of the doubt. We take all types here.

And here's another example of the condescending bark I was referring to.

[Frantic]

I believe you're being ignorant when you claim that some of the world's most intelligent people are displaying "profound levels of stupidity." That adds to why EU ideas are met with hostility when discussing them with non-supporters. The scientists are misinterpreting the data because many aspects of the theories are victims of convergent observations, which from our perspective in the universe two completely different theories could predict the same outcome. Of course, this is where Ockham's razor would help identify the more probable reality if it were properly followed.

When one attempts to apply Christianity to science, what do we call it? Stupidity, ignorance, speculation, what? That is what current science is doing, it is not right, it is not wrong, it is surely not science, it is a belief system. It is their confidence where they move themselves into profound stupidity, as well as their own admission and inability to correct themselves. Faith has no place in science.

I come at all this from a philosophical perspective of reason and logic, I never proclaim my thoughts as science, that is not my expertise. Call it what it is, Faith? Philosophy? Science? just don't mis-represent uncertainty as fact(the main-stream).

[viscount aero]

I'm not even talking about a conspiracy. That's a giant leap of logic to put words where they don't exist. Who gave you that idea?
Conspiracy would denote intelligence to carry out. We're talking about profound levels of stupidity.

Well I believe (and you as well) most mainstream scientists have a preconceived idea of the way the universe works and they're looking solely for confirmations. In that light, yes, they have intelligence to carry out just as two lobes of a comet nucleus are immediately deemed gravitationally merging bodies.

Ok so far we agree...

I believe you're being ignorant when you claim that some of the world's most intelligent people are displaying "profound levels of stupidity." That adds to why EU ideas are met with hostility when discussing them with non-supporters.

You're entitled to your opinion.

You must surely know, as you have yourself been alienated and called a "crackpot," that it is irrelevant how one presents the alternative idea. I typically exercise tact and neutrality. But that doesn't matter. Surely you have encountered this? You can be the nicest angel and it won't matter.

Again, I present you the "phys.org" culture and all sites like it. It is a bullying culture of intolerance and cliques. It doesn't matter how tactful you are with any of them. Did you read my point about WIkipedia? On there you can just edit in your own citations and evidence without any "debate" or interaction of any kind. And what happens? The information is audited and removed nearly immediately by shills. Surely you have seen this?

What is more egregious is that the public sees Wiki an alleged encyclopedia authority. Yet WIki is in actuality biased, incorrigible, and ignorant in the sciences. It is immediately hostile to evidence in facts presented that controvert the establishment running Wiki. Therefore, where are you finding the justification for your position? Any establishment theory will describe how comets have "seeded the Earth's oceans" and all manner of absolute fantasy; this is but one crime against science. It is the invisible pink leprechaun theory daring you to disprove the non-existence of invisible leprechauns under your bed

The hostility is a general culture, particularly when the establishment is called out and exposed for what they really are--perpetuating theories that do not describe an actual event or condition.

The scientists are misinterpreting the data because many aspects of the theories are victims of convergent observations, which from our perspective in the universe two completely different theories could predict the same outcome. Of course, this is where Ockham's razor would help identify the more probable reality if it were properly followed.

^^^ This comment borders on being pseudo-intellectual.

Where are you getting this rationale from? The opposing theories do not generally predict the same outcome.

Do you not actually read anything that the EU has predicted about cometary encounters before the encounters take place--events that the establishment never have imagined or predicted but are then "baffled" by when the EU theorist's predictions all come true?

Discussion, moreover, on a forum is not at all pointless when ideas among like-minded people can be freely shared. In time the old guard will fall under its own weight. Until then we must form subcultures.

But you are implying, seemingly, that sites like this are "pointless" and "animals eating their own tails." So what is the alternative? To go onto phys.org and have like-minded people there gang up on and ban people like those who visit this site? Is this what you're saying? If not then that is exactly what it sounds like. To that, if true, you seem to not be thinking very deeply in this discussion which is why I have taken time to speak out against your posts. You're implying that this whole site and its belief paradigm is a waste of time, comprising merely of people "rolling their eyes." This is really how you see this site?

My comment was not aimed at the site at all, merely at your "barking". I commend the ThunderboltsProject and its effort to educate the community against much ridicule. While many of your comments are well-thought and accurate, they all seem to have a pessimistic, satirical attitude. It was this attribute which I believe is counter productive as your value could be better used in more thought-provoking discussion.

You are framing my tone of "pessimism and satirical" to marginalize and disqualify my position when it is in actuality the truer point of view concerning the issue, revealing the situation for what it really is.

Despite my tonality, how is any of my commentary false?

Point out the falsehoods in my statements concerning the Rosetta mission and cometary theory in general and I will stand corrected. So far they're playing it all by the script, the ignorant non-scientific storyline that they've said for the past 30 years.

And I don't understand your comments about dissenting opinions:

One could say, too, that any debate is having an argument for the sake of it. Why do you imply this?

When can anyone debate, then? Is debate a bad idea? I only went on your replies which carry the strong fragrance of shilling for the belief systems that you allege to stand against. But go to phys.org and have a "debate" and see how far you get. They will eventually ban you there. But mainstream people have come here and have debated, many respectfully, and they have not been banned for dissenting opinions. What does that reveal, then? Why would phys.org and even Wikipedia audit, edit, and ban anything not conforming to mainstream theories that are clearly false?

Nope, dissenting opinions are no problem at all and debates are great to have. I was just startled by your apparent aversion to my comment when I agree with your views of EU theory and mainstream ignorance, though with a much less harsh and condescending attitude. This current paradigm shift is an incredible example of the misuse of the scientific method, whose transformation will be studied in the future similar to that of the geocentric dogma.

Ok. I accept that. I just don't understand why you assumed a virtual justification for the cliche'd establishment position.

But I will give you benefit of the doubt. We take all types here.

And here's another example of the condescending bark I was referring to.

Anything dissenting can be taken condescendingly even when not intended, especially when there is rampant myopia. Phys.org will not take all types. You and I both know that. I gave you the benefit of the doubt--even now--and I've made my point See you on the icy snowman! Peace [with handshake].

[Rossim]

I guess my point is if it's so obvious to us, then why isn't it obvious to the mainstream? If contradictory evidence is presented, WHY is it ignored? Surely the mainstream is motivated by fame with the Nobel prize, why wouldn't one of the established scientists take the EU perspective and beat everyone to the punch with their own paper of predictions? I do not agree with the mainstream on almost any astrophysical theory, I am extremely skeptical. But from a scientific POV I have to realize that for some reason the way the argument is being presented isn't being followed by the mainstream.

[viscount aero]

I guess my point is if it's so obvious to us, then why isn't it obvious to the mainstream? If contradictory evidence is presented, WHY is it ignored? Surely the mainstream is motivated by fame with the Nobel prize, why wouldn't one of the established scientists take the EU perspective and beat everyone to the punch with their own paper of predictions? I do not agree with the mainstream on almost any astrophysical theory, I am extremely skeptical. But from a scientific POV I have to realize that for some reason the way the argument is being presented isn't being followed by the mainstream.

Yep

Consider these points:

"The establishment is:"

• political
• myopic
• guarded
• threatened
• too invested
• "all in"
• prideful
• authoritative
• controlling
• interdependent on other fallacy theories
• stubborn
• elitist
• incorrigible
• pious
• presumptuous
• in a bubble
• red tape
• institutionalized
• already "in the know"
• groupthink
• fascist


Can you name some more points that lead to willful ignorance?

[starbiter]

I guess my point is if it's so obvious to us, then why isn't it obvious to the mainstream? If contradictory evidence is presented, WHY is it ignored? Surely the mainstream is motivated by fame with the Nobel prize, why wouldn't one of the established scientists take the EU perspective and beat everyone to the punch with their own paper of predictions? I do not agree with the mainstream on almost any astrophysical theory, I am extremely skeptical. But from a scientific POV I have to realize that for some reason the way the argument is being presented isn't being followed by the mainstream.

Yep

Consider these points:

"The establishment is:"

• political
• myopic
• guarded
• threatened
• too invested
• "all in"
• prideful
• authoritative
• controlling
• interdependent on other fallacy theories
• stubborn
• elitist
• incorrigible
• pious
• presumptuous
• in a bubble
• red tape
• institutionalized
• already "in the know"
• groupthink
• fascist


Can you name some more points that lead to willful ignorance?

Yes, unlearning is painful and difficult. Especially if the learning was expensive and difficult. Admitting that an entire Ph.D is wrong seems to be the most painful. If EU is correct, that is the case with cosmology and geology.

michael