What made you decide to reject LCDM theory?

[Michael Mozina]

It's rather interesting to me to look back at my recent past, and to see how much of my understanding of astronomy and physics has been dramatically altered based on the events of the past decade or so. Until around 2005, I held a rather "typical" view of the universe. I can't say I was really "thrilled" with big bang theory, but like most folks I did embrace the idea, and I also embraced the standard solar model. I'd say my beliefs on the topics of space were pretty "typical" until one evening in early 2005.

My introduction and slow conversion to EU/PC theory began in early 2005 while watching some SOHO satellite images of the sun, specifically after reviewing many hours worth of "running difference" solar images in 193A. I had an epiphany that evening about the electrical nature of the solar atmosphere while watching those videos. In an instant of insight, all the high energy solar images that seemed "explainable" to me in the past, suddenly all made perfect sense, including the heat source of the corona and coronal loops as well as the kinetic energy release of solar flares. I thought I was oh so clever to have figured out that electricity was the heat source of the corona that night. It wasn't until months later that I ran into Birkeland's actual lab work that I realized that the "mystery" of the sun's corona had already been "explained" in the lab over 100 years before I finally figured it out. It was rather humbling to find out that I was at least a century late to the party in terms of making any actual "discovery" about the heat source of the corona.

I began publicly debating astronomers over the concept of an "electric sun" on the internet on an astronomy oriented website that was then called "Bad Astronomy", aptly named in retrospect. It's now known as "Cosmoquest". I decided to join an ongoing conversation that Dr. Oliver Manuel had started at Bad Astronomy on the topic of an "iron sun". I happened to notice the conversation on Google one night and it seemed only logical to see how well Birkeland's solar ideas held up to some serious public scrutiny. By then Dr. Oliver Manuel, Hilton Ratcliffe and I had already published a few papers together. I assumed at the time that the "rigid surface" concept that we presented in those published papers was bound to be "controversial", but I still had high hopes that the conversation would remain relatively civil, and I assumed it would be an enlightening conversation. It certainly was a very enlightening conversation as I expected, but in terms of having civil conversations with the mainstream, all I can say is that I was *so* naive back then....

Much to my great surprise, the most "controversial" aspect of the presentation of Birkeland's solar model was the electrical nature of coronal loops and the electrical nature of the coronal heating processes in general, not the concept of a "rigid surface" located under the photosphere as I naively first presumed. Oddly enough the electrical aspects seemed to be the "most offensive" part of my presentation at least as far as the mainstream was concerned. Prior to that particular conversation, it never even occurred to me that the electrical aspect of our solar theory was even all that "controversial". We routinely use electricity to heat plasma in the lab, so I assumed that particular concept wasn't going to be all that controversial of an idea. Boy was I in for a shock.

While I was impressed at the amount of attention and scrutiny that the "electric sun" idea received at "Bad Astronomy", the one really "unusual" aspect of that specific conversation is that it took place in their "against the mainstream" forum, a forum that they specifically devote to "scientific witch hunts" of all sorts.

They specifically chose to impose entirely different standards of evidence and entirely different standards of conversation as it relates to their own cosmology belief vs. the beliefs of anyone or any idea that failed to toe the party line. That part of the conversation was rather intriguing and enlightening from my perspective.

It became quite clear from that conversation that I had inadvertently and unintentionally stepped into an ongoing war between "electric universe" proponents and Lambda-CDM proponents. By the time that the mainstream at Bad Astronomy finally got around to banning me for my solar heresy, I had become very curious to know if their own cosmology belief would hold up to the same type of public scrutiny that they applied to "electric sun" concepts, and "electric universe" concepts in general.

I decided to satisfy my curiosity. I figured out a clever way to use their own skewed forum rules against them by starting a conversation on the topic of Lambda-CDM on their "against the mainstream" forum, and skeptically demanding to see the 'physical evidence' to support their claims under the anonymous handle of "ManInTheMirror". Wow, was that a fun and informative conversation and thread! They got so upset over the conversation, that they actually went out of their way to *change the forum rules* during our conversation so that they could shut down all dissenting threads in their "Against the Mainstream" forum in a mere 30 days, without exception. I was thoroughly amused by the knee-jerk reaction to public scrutiny of their claims.

It was quite clear from that conversation that their various "dark" terms were simply placeholder terms for human ignorance and they had no actual empirical cause/effect justification for any of their key claims.

2006 was a bit of a landmark year for Lambda-CDM in terms of "dark matter" theory. That year they came out with their now infamous lensing study of galaxy cluster collisions that supposedly "proved" the existence of "dark matter". They also had really high hopes back then because the LHC was about to come online and they were "sure" that evidence of long lived exotic particle matter was right around the corner.

I took a lot of public criticism during the first few years for being a public "skeptic" of mainstream theory, particularly after that 2006 lensing study came out. I recall conversations at JREF where Lambda-CDM proponents were claiming to have accounted for every bit of ordinary matter down to objects the size of the moon.

I did however use my free time to study Birkeland's work, Alfven's work, Peratt's work, Bruce's papers, Dungey's papers, Dr. Scott's book, Juergen's paper's and a number of other works that taught me a whole lot about various ideas in EU/PC theory. The "enlightening" revelation for me was the vast amount of literature and even lab experiments that supported the basic concepts of EU/PC theory. I had no idea at first that such a wealth of published information even existed on this topic. The more published work that I read, the more impressed I became.

After I got through reading Alfven's own "bang" theory, and his book Cosmic Plasma, my rejection of Lambda-CDM theory was pretty much solidified.

By 2008 and 2009 when the first few "chinks" in the dark matter armor finally showed up, I was definitely tired of hearing all their false claims about how much "evidence" supposedly supported Lambda-CDM The more I understood the nature of their so called "evidence", the more it became obvious that all of their claims are not based on actual empirical cause/effect evidence, but rather they are based upon pure special pleading.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15850

Over the past decade there have been more and more damning bits of evidence that have poked huge holes in Lambda-CDM, and holes in their own solar model as well. LHC falsified all their "popular" SUSY claims, and every single "lab experiment" on "cold dark matter" has since been a complete bust. Their SN1A "standard candles" have since been shown to be less than "standard" than they originally claimed, and there are hemispheric variations in Planck data sets which defy inflation predictions of a "homogeneous" layout of matter. There's pretty much nothing left standing to support Lambda-CDM claims at this point. Even their convection predictions related to solar physics were shown to be off by two entire orders of magnitude.

Some of the unexpected "revelations" that took place for me along the way included Alfven's outright rejection of "magnetic reconnection" theory as pure "pseudoscience", and the fact he made that claim obsolete with his double layer paper. I didn't know any of that in 2005. I also had no idea that Kristian Birkeland had actually experimented with electric sun ideas in his lab, and that he made a long list of successful solar predictions based upon those experiments. I think the most "stunning" revelation for me was "finding out" that Edwin Hubble personally preferred a "tired light' solution to his photon redshift observation. Every single documentary I'd ever seen, or book I'd ever read on Lambda-CDM claimed somewhere in the video or presentation that "Hubble proved the universe is expanding". I had no idea that Lambda-CDM proponents would blatantly misrepresent his own opinions like that.

All in all, it's been an interest last 11 years. I stepped into the middle of a huge public debate that I knew nothing about prior to my little epiphany in 2005 one night while studying solar satellite images. Little did I know when I sat down to study satellite images one night just how much and how dramatically my beliefs about space were about to change.

I'm curious to know what made others decide to embrace EU/PC theory, and what their early internet experience were like?

[Chickenmales]

Interesting story, thanks for posting.

Perhaps, the people in the mainstream feel threatened by these ideas because if they're true, it means their funding will be cut and they'll either have to do some real work or starve. So, it's best to shut down and ostracize anyone with contrary evidence. There's probably also the people following the group thing as well.

I'm new here so I was just wondering... What's Lambda-CDM stand for...

[webolife]

I've told my story a few times in other contexts, but here's a brief version to get this conversation going. I was interested in unified field theories from an early age, inspired by Occam's Razor, and by a naive belief that the truth about physics, once revealed, should be understandable to a child. I've been working on a geometrical unification of gravitation, electricity and light since the early '80s, inspired by my mentor the late Robert Archer Smith, a physicist from the Seattle area whom I met at a local teachers' conference [that he crashed]. At that time I read [and had in my possession for about 4 years] a 1000-page unpublished manuscript by him entitled "The Truth About Light" -- he tried to spark interest among local colleges/professors and published a few articles, but in general he mistrusted the scientific community and didn't want to publicize his findings "before their time". I challenged him frequently about this, leading eventually to a falling out between us, and a loss of contact when he moved away from his modest apartment in downtown Seattle. He passed away about a decade ago, and I have with some effort and frustration located his original manuscript and a hardbound copy of it. These are both in the possession of another ailing student of his in the local area. This man is hard to connect with, and very reticent to give up [or sell] one of his copies to me. I have been patiently waiting for a few years to make some progress in this endeavor, but yet to no avail. Some of the basics of RA Smith's "Punctual Theory" of light, what I have come to call the Centropic Pressure Field Theory [CPFT] are:
1. The isodynamic matrix -- a 2-D geometric description of the universe as an order system built upon the hexagon, and more fundamentally the equilateral triangle, in which rt-3, rt-2, and the ratio of rt-3/rt-2 play a significant part in his unified description of phenomena from the arrangement of the solar system to the periodicity of the elements
2. Areal-Mass Equivalency -- a recognition that vector density is a more fundamental dynamical state than matter, and mass derives from the radius/semi-major axis of a system by a simple set of formulas. He gave an extensive description of Bode's Rule in which he derives masses of the outer planets from Jupiter to the Kuiper Zone based strictly upon his ratio of Area to Mass as a function of radius, actually semi-major axis.
3. Centropy -- Universal centropic pressure drives all other phenomena in the universe at all scales from astronomic to atomic and is the fundamental force from which gravitation, electricity, nuclear energy, and light are derived manifestations, following the same geometric principles at all scales. Centropy is diametrically opposite to the Big Bang, RA Smith called it "The Big Cinch", and equated Centropy with entropy, and ultimately with TIME itself. He referred to it in his manuscript [TAL] as the T-Force. Magnetism is a system of "null" vectors orthogonal to Centropy.
4. Light is pressure, described as vectors directed toward the source/centroid of a system, as opposed to particles or waves emanating from the source, therefore it has no relevant longitudinal "speed" -- c is a derived non-entity. The spectrum is a pressure gradient, obeying simple geometric rules.
5. Simple experiments can be done to demonstrate that light does not [cannot] interfere through slit devices, and that "diffraction" is the result of the angular ordering of optical rays/vectors by a pinhole, slit[s], lenses or similar imaging/focusing devices, even a single edge or a beamsplitter. The dark lines that distinguish the so-called interference pattern are shown to be the shadows of the beamsplitter, and that the pattern is a direct image of the light field manifested by straight lines ordered by the pinhole/imaging device, not a distortion caused by bending of light waves by slit edges, nor an interference of wavefronts.
With the advent of the internet, and my slowly increasing familiarity with it, I came across articles by Ralph Sansbury on electrigravitics and the nature of instantaneous light transmission. I contacted Ralph and had a short somewhat strained dialogue with him via email, a conversation that included a third person, a retired radio technician from NASA/AMES -- the name Wal Thornhill came up, which I traced to the Electric Universe and Thunderbolts. The EU emphasis on catastrophism also resounded with my long interest and study of catastrophic earth history [I am a semi-retired Science and Math teacher, 39 years now in the public education system], so I contribute a bit to those threads that are relevant to my own research in catastrophism.
My views on the nature of light are so extreme to some in these parts that I find lots of opportunities to debate even in the EU ranks, not much different than many dialogues I've had over the years with standard modelers. The difference with EU dialogues is that most standard modelers don't even realize [or care] that there are viable alternative views.

[webolife]

Chickenmales,
Lambda-Cold Dark Matter is a system of thought prevalent in modern cosmological circles in which there are two juxtaposed fudge factors:
1. Cosmological constant [lambda] -- added to expansion formulae to try to account for why the universe is allegedly expanding so fast [based on standard Doppler interpretations of redshift], and...
2. Dark matter -- conceived to try to explain the existence of large galaxies and super-galactic masses, ie. how they are held together in the absence of sufficient visible material to account for their relative sizes and rapid rotations [according to Newtonian or Relativistic formulations]. Since there is no evidence for it other than that gravitational theories don't work without it to describe observed motions, it's called "dark" matter; and lambda is likewise attributed to "dark" energy.
There you have it, two physically imaginary elements holding the universe and the Big Bang model together.
What would we do without them??
Oh, that's the EU.

[Zyxzevn]

The big bang theory has a big flaw, because it needs a mythical start.
I always opposed that idea from the start I learned it. It is simply not logical to
extend the maths of physics, until it does not work and then suddenly invent new
physics that does not exist anywhere else.
So, from pure mathematical logic, I opposed the big bang (LCDM).

The cosmic background radiation just seemed statistical nonsense as well.

I tried to discuss with some scientists on the newsgroups (20 years ago), but no-one gave a logical answer.
I proposed alternatives that that can join the maths and physics, but they were just disregarded.
They did not even understand why it was necessary.

That taught me that there is a lack in the mathematical intelligence of the scientists involved.
Something I often encountered on the University. Teachers (including professors) only understood
the parts that they had studied, and did not know of any alternatives.
Slowly I started doubting more and more of the mainstream theories.

The EU and other people showed me that much of the evidence for the theories
had alternative explanations. The black holes are a good example of that.
So I started to find more and more flaws in general relativity and its "evidence".
Also discovered some falsifying observations.

The research of Halton Arp shows that the expansion might just be a mirage, an illusion from
interstellar plasma. If it was my area of research, I would want to be certain of any problems with
redshift. But instead his work is completely ignored.

For me the problem is not really the science, but the scientific community.
And more and more it seems that the scientific community is governed by people
that are not very intelligent, but uphold a structure of authority and knowledge to pretend to be intelligent.
The idea that more knowledge (and more authority) equals more intelligence is the
big illusion of mainstream science.

[Metryq]

They specifically chose to impose entirely different standards of evidence and entirely different standards of conversation as it relates to their own cosmology belief vs. the beliefs of anyone or any idea that failed to toe the party line.

I think of this every time someone smugly quotes Carl Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Naturally, anything outside the accepted, mainstream models is judged "extraordinary" and in need of exceptional backing to be considered, let alone accepted.

It might have been one of Tom Van Flandern's writings that first brought this to my attention. To the average "man in the street" it probably sounds very reasonable. (Again, where "reason" is the voice of authority, not facts.)

[Michael Mozina]

They specifically chose to impose entirely different standards of evidence and entirely different standards of conversation as it relates to their own cosmology belief vs. the beliefs of anyone or any idea that failed to toe the party line.

I think of this every time someone smugly quotes Carl Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Naturally, anything outside the accepted, mainstream models is judged "extraordinary" and in need of exceptional backing to be considered, let alone accepted.

It might have been one of Tom Van Flandern's writings that first brought this to my attention. To the average "man in the street" it probably sounds very reasonable. (Again, where "reason" is the voice of authority, not facts.)

Even their notion of "extraordinary" defies logic. EU/PC theory uses only *ordinary* forces of nature to explain what we observe in nature. LCDM theory in comparison is only about 5 percent actual physics. The rest of their claim is purely "hypothetical" in nature, and utterly devoid of empirical cause/effect justification. No form of "dark energy" ever had a tangible effect on a photon in any lab experiment on Earth. What makes their claims "extraordinary" is the fact that almost none of it is actually "ordinary" in the first place.

The thing that simply blows me away is that Birkeland physically demonstrated and explained the heat source of the corona using real lab experiments over 100 years ago. There's really nothing "mysterious" about it. Even after finding out that their convection predictions (the power source of their coronal heating claims) were off by two whole orders of magnitude, they never skipped a beat and never batted an eye with respect to any of their solar claims either.

The whole of astronomy seems to be based upon pure and utter denial of the role of electricity in space. The very minute that they open the door that that possibility, their need for extraordinary types of mass/energy go flying right out the window, along with huge parts of their solar theories along with it.

In 2006 they really had "high hopes" for the "cold dark matter" part of their claim. They really seemed excited to be able to test their various ideas out in the lab. The results of the past decade however did not jive with their preconceived ideas, so those experiments have no become bottom-less money pits where vast amounts of public funds are wasted on a regular basis, and NULL results are simply swept under the rug as 'constraints", which are otherwise simply ignored.

The intriguing thing to me was how poorly they did at defending their theories even back in 2005 and 2006 at "Bad Astronomy" with respect to their own claims. After the past decade of dark matter lab failures, it's really getting difficult to logically defend any aspect of their claim in public. They simply wont even try anymore, at least not with me.

The other really remarkable thing to me is the fact that in order for them to actually be right about the real "cause" of photon redshift, every single photon reaching Earth from distant objects must apparently weave and dodge it's way around every temperature and EM field gradient in the whole universe without losing any energy ever to any inelastic scattering process in plasma over billions of light years. Talk about faith in miracles.

[Michael Mozina]

The big bang theory has a big flaw, because it needs a mythical start.
I always opposed that idea from the start I learned it. It is simply not logical to
extend the maths of physics, until it does not work and then suddenly invent new
physics that does not exist anywhere else.

So, from pure mathematical logic, I opposed the big bang (LCDM).

Alfven rejected LCDM for pretty much the same reasons. Even his "Bang" theory didn't require all matter/energy to focus itself to a singular point, nor did it require any creation (of all matter) mythologies of any type. He simply began with a high distributed matter/antimatter cloud and let it "condense" itself via gravity until the matter and antimatter started to interact. Even if you rewind time based on the notion that redshift is related to expansion, you can't automatically "assume" that all matter and energy was ever concentrated to a single "point". The "creation" (of all matter) aspect is something that Alfven vehemently rejected.

The cosmic background radiation just seemed statistical nonsense as well.

Actually it's simply a temperature "feature" of starlight bouncing off dust particles in spacetime that Eddington himself correctly predicted to within a half of a degree long before "big bang" theory became "popular". Undoubtedly the universe does have an "average" temperature of some sort, but it has nothing to do with a "bang". They also massage the data something fierce to claim it's "homogeneous". They first have to remove all the bright spots related to sun and dust in our own galaxy.

I tried to discuss with some scientists on the newsgroups (20 years ago), but no-one gave a logical answer.
I proposed alternatives that that can join the maths and physics, but they were just disregarded.
They did not even understand why it was necessary.

I think most astronomers are not used to being "critiqued" in public by anyone they don't have control over in some manner. If you don't toe the party line as a student, you don't get a passing grade. The internet provides a much more "level playing field" and it opens them up to honest criticism. They don't seem to fair well in that environment, and most of them know little or nothing about EU/PC theory or any idea outside of their own (very supernatural) belief systems.

That taught me that there is a lack in the mathematical intelligence of the scientists involved.

I would argue that there is a ton of "mathematical intelligence" in LCDM theory, just no common sense! They keep slapping math formulas to make-believe entities galore. Lots of math, but no physical substance.

Something I often encountered on the University. Teachers (including professors) only understood
the parts that they had studied, and did not know of any alternatives.
Slowly I started doubting more and more of the mainstream theories.

The EU and other people showed me that much of the evidence for the theories
had alternative explanations. The black holes are a good example of that.
So I started to find more and more flaws in general relativity and its "evidence".
Also discovered some falsifying observations.

The research of Halton Arp shows that the expansion might just be a mirage, an illusion from
interstellar plasma. If it was my area of research, I would want to be certain of any problems with
redshift. But instead his work is completely ignored.

For me the problem is not really the science, but the scientific community.
And more and more it seems that the scientific community is governed by people
that are not very intelligent, but uphold a structure of authority and knowledge to pretend to be intelligent.
The idea that more knowledge (and more authority) equals more intelligence is the
big illusion of mainstream science.

I'd say that they are highly intelligent, but unfortunately they're also egotistical and fearful. I think that they believe that they "know" something about their individualized field of "expertise", but then not a one of them can name so much as a single source of "dark energy", so what kind of "expertise" do they actually possess cumulatively?

IMO it's their ego, and their fear that keeps them stuck in the "dark" ages of astronomy. They really cannot all afford to come out of the closet today and admit openly that they really know almost nothing about the universe around us. Instead they peddle a concept that Alfven called "pseudoscience" to the five percent of the universe that they even claim to know anything about.

[Zyxzevn]

I would argue that there is a ton of "mathematical intelligence" in LCDM theory, just no common sense!

Applying mathematical formulas is something completely different than understanding all its complications.
This full understanding is what I meant with mathematical intelligence.
Someone with common sense is interested in such complications and alternative viewpoints.
Sadly a lot of mainstream science is about thinking one way and not any other way.
Usually that is called "being stupid".

[willendure]

I'm new here so I was just wondering... What's Lambda-CDM stand for...

Lambda-CDM stands for Lambda Cold Dark Matter.

It describes the process by which any pet theory you have that turns out to be wrong can always be made right again by adding some more variables then fitting them to the facts. The variables do not need to be directly observed and tied to physical evidence. This is good, as it allows science to progress faster, unencumbered by boring old empiricism.

[BeAChooser]

Good topic.

As I told “Sarah Scoles”, recently , when she showed up here to “interview” us for her hit piece, I first encountered EU back in the early 90s when I read a book titled the “The Big Bang Never Happened” by Eric Lerner which had just been published. I read the book because I had a long term love of astronomy extending back to my days on a Moonwatch team. That interest continued even when I became an engineer (civil, structural, systems).

It didn’t take much more than Lerner’s book to convince me something was very wrong with mainstream cosmology and all the gnomes that had already been invented to prop it up. What Lerner proposed seemed more rational than believing in the house of cards that modern astrophysics had built based on singularities and black holes, inflation, dark matter and dark energy … not a one of which 20 years later have been proven to be anything more than gnomes.

For example, plasmoids and physics that can be reproduced in laboratories here on earth offered a intuitively satisfying explanation for phenomena such as jets, quasars and pulsars. Hannes Alfven and Gustaf Arrhenius had explanations for the formation of our solar system and galaxy that was more to my liking. Whereas the mainstream’s explanation continues to leave many phenomena (like how momentum got distributed where it is) suspiciously vague or gnome filled, Alfven’s homopolar model intuitively seemed to fit most of the observations that I’d seen (and have seen since). And over the years, my belief in that model has only gotten stronger with observations like the alignment of galactic jets.

Years ago, when I began discussing this subject with mainstream believers (on forums like JREF) and I’d point out the plasma filaments and magnetic fields at the center of the Milky Way that seemed to fit Alfven’s model, they’d argue that they had nothing to do with anything and were not as ubiquitous as Alfven had predicted. They’d argue that there was no proof of currents being carried by those filaments. Now, years later, Alfven’s predictions has been proven right. There are indeed currents in space. There are plasma filaments visible … everywhere. And everywhere we look these filaments are being helically wound, just as EU theorists predicted years ago would happen under the influence of electric current and the magnetic fields produced by them. The mainstream has simply been unable to offer a convincing explanation for the helical winding of filaments. You NEVER actually see computer model results that reproduce such structures from “gas”, “gravity” and “wind”. The “shock” explanations are simply vague hand waving on their part.

I was also intrigued by the work of Anthony Peratt, who showed that one could reproduce the formation of galaxies and their rotation curves using just the known interaction of plasma and electromagnetic forces. Since it was the inability of gravity alone to explain rotation curves that led to the *invention* of the dark matter gnome, discovering this knocked a leg off my belief in the mainstream edifice … which they have never been able to reattach. In fact, every time I see the mainstream repeat the meme that dark matter is the ONLY explanation for the rotation curves, it just reaffirms to me that they are either lying or poorly educated.

And as the years have gone by, the number of gnomes underpinning the mainstream theory has multiplied into the double digits due to their having no rational explanation for one surprising observation after another. This is because they steadfastly refuse to view the universe from the bedrock of the physics we see in our labs. Their support of the Big Bang edifice is not scientific but religious in nature. They’ve literally created a cult, that has made many of it’s “priests” relatively wealthy and famous, and these priests now protect their anointed status at all costs. By now, they’ve completely lost touch with reality. Their universe is an esoteric mathematical model which they “BELIEVE” is more real than what they actually see out there. And only they, the anointed priests, can see the truth. When some observation surprises them (and it happens almost daily now), they add more gnomes to try and make the model fit the observations, rather than reexamining their underlying assumptions. They can’t reexamine then because that would expose the sham they’ve been engaged in the last several decades at least. God forbid if the populace ever realizes that they’ve wasted billions and billions of dollars pursuing magical fairies that they should have known were nothing but magic fairies decades ago. God forbid if the populace ever grasps the opportunity costs from their having led science astray in so many important fields.

[orrery]

I was like 11 or 12 years old and read Eric Lerner's book The Big Bang Never Happened after finding it was newly added to my school's library. Never looked back.

[Cargo]

Good topic..../snip/

Well said.

[webolife]

You young'uns are fortunate. It's taken me years of research to unlearn all the crap I was indoctrinated with.
The more I debate with mainstreamers [main-dreamers], the more I realize the truth of my oft-repeated adage, "Everyone [incl every scientist] observes the universe from a "faith base" that ultimately dictates their conclusions." We are deluded into thinking we are correct in our presumptions when we all crowd around a single window through which to observe the world. Hence the so-called "scientific consensus". Hence my signature statement.

[Osmosis]

Webolife,

I'll have to agree with you, after 45+ years of following the EU and my first reading of "Worlds in Collision".

Many arguments with educated main stream folks, who think they know how the Universe works-they know nothing.

Osmosis