The term Cosmology vs. Astronomy

[Michael Mozina]

At some point in the past, the term "astrology" began as a result of careful observation and with the meticulous study of objects in space. Then came mathematical calculations which were successfully used to describe and "predict" events in space. Suddenly it became possible for astrologers to calculate the date, time and location of a lunar eclipse. Their math had practical application.

"Astrologers" however, tried to describe and propose a "connection" with their mathematical descriptions of events in space with real and tangible effects on real human beings throughout their lives. While some of the math that astrologers came up with was useful to describe events in space, the control/interaction with human beings aspect of their claim was never able to be demonstrated in any real controlled scientific experiment. Eventually the term "astrology" was rejected and 'astronomy' began to grow in popularity to become the term that is currently being used to describe the 'scientific' study of space.

Unfortunately over the past half century in particular, the term "astronomy" has since devolved into a description of events in space that are based upon almost entirely unseen (in the lab) forms of matter and energy, none of which pass the controlled experimental whiff test either. The term "astronomy" is now synonymous with "dark" energy, dark matter, inflation, magical forms of expansion, etc, none of which have any predictive value in the lab to date. In terms of the lab results from controlled experimentation, it's mystical deja vu all over again. There's absolutely no empirical difference between astrology and astronomy in the lab. It's six of one, a half dozen of the other, or more correctly it is 0 in both instances.

Since the mystical/magical cycle seems to be repeating itself in "astronomy" today, IMO it makes sense for us to use the term "cosmology" to describe empirically based ideas about the cosmos that we live in, and avoid the term "astronomy" entirely. We tend to describe empirically based "cosmology" ideas. Some of our ideas may of course be wrong, but in all ways they remain consistent with laboratory tested physics and plasma physics and all the empirical results from the lab.

[Metryq]

Hmmm, I don't think adopting the term "cosmology" would help much. Michio Kaku, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Brian Greene are already all over that, and it's as mystical as ever. Still, it would be nice to have a Trademark way of distinguishing between "current astronomy" and "Current Astronomy."

[webolife]

NG Tyson is particularly odious in his attempts to model the systematic spirituality of C Sagan as he rationalizes nd mystifies at the same time the contradictions that cloud the current astronomy framework.
Cosmology is not a bad word, but it names the search for paradigms of the whole, rather than enumerating and predicting specific observations of the heavens.
Cosmologoly has become confused and conflated with Cosmogony, the study of the universe's origins, hence the realm of BB "mythology".

[Michael Mozina]

It seems pretty obvious from the state of the internet conversations that professional "astronomers" today are incapable and unwilling of even looking outside of the metaphysical LCDM box at this point. Nothing can get them to see how absurd it is for them to leave inelastic scattering out of their equations.

Astronomy today is a circular feedback look akin to astrology. It's essentially no different in the lab. The only difference is we've already now spent *billions* of dollars supposedly "testing' "astronomy" beliefs, and they still have absolutely nothing tangible to show for any of it.

I'm into "cosmology" theory these days, electric universe theory and plasma cosmology specfically. I have absolutely no interest in "astronomy" or astrology. They are both scientific unflalsifible belief systems which are based on metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, with little or no practical value in the lab.

[Michael Mozina]

I've come to realize that "astronomy" as an entire field of science is pretty much a lost cause at this point. In order to get a job in the industry, one must first pledge allegiance to big bang theory, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, space expansion, and embrace the whole metaphysical menagerie. To reject one metaphysical concept is to reject them all, and the dogma of big bang theory is pretty much 'sacred dogma' at this point. Even the concept of 'questioning' tired light proposals again is unforgivable heresy.

I think cosmology theory as a field of science will arise as the new "scientific" way to view the universe, without all the metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance. "Astronomy" however is simply stuck in a metaphysical rut with no way out other than to toss it all out and start over. There is just too much ego, funding, and prestige tied up in the process for that to ever happen. Meanwhile, and the level of actual empirical physics and useful lab results, astronomy is the metaphysical equivalent of astrology. They are both completely incapable of predicting anything correctly in the lab.

[webolife]

Astronomy is not the enemy here, I think...
The tangibles astronomers are grappling with, all those "surprises" and "challenges we hear about with every new space mission are/will be the seeds of a new paradigm [eventually]; but for now we must crunch and re-crunch the data and show the power of alternate explanations eg. EU/PC, in resolving some of the mysteries of the cosmos. Perhaps we can begin by clarifying that astronomy is the pursuit of the physics [gravitation, electricity, magnetism, light, energy budget, etc.] of the universe, whereas cosmology is the search for underlying principles and paradigms that unify the 'VERSE...

[Michael Mozina]

Astronomy is not the enemy here, I think...
The tangibles astronomers are grappling with, all those "surprises" and "challenges we hear about with every new space mission are/will be the seeds of a new paradigm [eventually]; but for now we must crunch and re-crunch the data and show the power of alternate explanations eg. EU/PC, in resolving some of the mysteries of the cosmos. Perhaps we can begin by clarifying that astronomy is the pursuit of the physics [gravitation, electricity, magnetism, light, energy budget, etc.] of the universe, whereas cosmology is the search for underlying principles and paradigms that unify the 'VERSE...

I guess my point is that mathematical models which are based upon ideas which defy falsification, and upon claims which are shy around the lab, are pretty much meaningless in terms of seeking "real" explanations about the universe we live in.

Humans seem to relish in embracing the "unexplained" rather than empirical explanations. That seems to be a metaphysical pattern that has repeated itself in astrology and again in astronomy.

We need some logical linguistic way of distinguishing between real empirical physical explanations to what we observe in space from purely mythical flights of fancy in order for "science" to progress as it relates to astronomy/cosmology/the study of the universe that we live in.

I can't even look at iron ion images of the sun anymore without noticing the electrical nature of the processes which are seen in those images. Why the mainstream remains emotionally stuck in their "magnetic" mumbo-jumbo is a complete mystery to me. Real laboratory experiments have demonstrated the electrical(ly driven) nature of those events, from Birkeland works over a century ago, to ongoing SAFIRE experiments today.

The mainstream needs to let go of nearly all of it's preconceived beliefs in order to embrace "reality", but alas the mainstream seems to be emotionally attached to unfalsifiable ideas and claims which enjoy no laboratory support whatsoever. When they can demonstrate an hour long, million degree "magnetic rope" in the lab produced by "magnetic reconnection" then they can tell me how it's a magnetically driven event. Until then it's pretty obviously an electrically driven and electrically sustained process, just like lightning, and arc lamps here on Earth.

https://www.space.com/8541-6-private-co ... space.html

I think our "best" hope for the future of space science lies in private enterprise frankly. Private "for profit" companies will be interested in learning how to tap into the circuitry of the universe if only to tap into a vast, preexisting power supply. I suspect that tethers in space to produce massive amounts of electricity in space will be some of the first "real consumer products" to come from "electric cosmology" technologies. We even have the technology to beam that energy back to the ground. Even NASA's own "test" of tether power generated *far* more electrical current than they ever predicted or imagined, to the point of burning right through their tether.

I think private companies will eventually realize the "practical" and financial value of technologies that are based upon electrically oriented beliefs about the cosmos. The tide will then certainly turn toward EU/PC beliefs. Until then the "scholastic monopolies" pretty much control what is fed to the media, and the public really has no idea that there even are any "empirical" alternatives to metaphysical big bang concepts of space.