The pace of change in astronomy is like molasses

[Michael Mozina]

I must admit that it's a tad depressing to read various emails from LMSAL about their upcoming meetings on solar physics, and to see that they are still 'perplexed" at features and processes that Birkeland not only "predicted", but also empirically simulated in his lab over 100 years ago based on circuit theory.

It's also simply inexcusable IMO that the mainstream remains so willfully ignorant of Birkeland's work and Alfven's work, particularly their complete ignorance of circuit theory as it applies to astrophysical plasma. I can't for the life of me understand how or why LMSAL thinks that it's even possible to understand the longevity of something like a single (multi-day) coronal loop without looking at the whole *circuit energy* that makes it possible to sustain that long lived process. It's simply unbelievable to me how much they are still just groping around in the dark, and downright depressing that they are still trying to explain circuit processes with "pseudoscience".

After the past decades worth of revelations about stellar mass underestimates and failed exotic matter laboratory "tests", one would think they'd actually be looking for some real answers about now. Instead they seem to be quite content to go to their graves without ever figuring out anything. Even worse, they continue to peddling supernatural creation mythology to unsuspecting children, and they do more scientific harm than good.

It took the mainstream something on the order of 60 years to figure out Birkeland's aurora model was correct. A the rate their going, it may take them another 100 years to figure out that there's a solar/electrical process required too.

It's really hard to imagine how the mainstream could be more "messed up". Not only don't they have a clue about 95 percent of the universe, the five percent that they claim is made of plasma they mathematically model using a form of "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory. A 100 percent fail is about as low of a score in "understanding" as is humanly possible.

Is the mainstream even capable of fixing itself at this point, or will the old guard simply have to die off for empirical progress in our understanding of the universe to occur?

[Sceptical lefty]

"Molasses" exaggerates the speed somewhat. The Guardians of the Standard Model have staked their position. You would stand a chance if there was a possibility of compromise. Can you see a way of conceding that the Standard Model may be tweaked to accommodate Plasma Cosmology? "Sure, Einstein got it wrong and the Big Bang is garbage ... but we can work with that!" This simply will not happen. Plasma Cosmology will succeed over the bones of the defenders of the existing order.

Worse; if the new model succeeds, it will strike powerful blows at the roots of geophysics, geology, theoretical physics, climatology and a few other branches of science. Are all of those professors, doctors, etc. going to sit idly by and watch their jobs evaporate and their lives' work reduced to irrelevance?

The plasma cosmologists are taking on the vast bulk of the scientific Establishment. Either they are right or you are. You don't just represent an interesting new idea that may be worth looking at: you represent the destruction of the Establishment's concept of civilisation. Such a threat is to be destroyed -- not temporised with and certainly not embraced. There is no trick too dirty to be employed when defending one's right to exist.

Once you understand the stakes and the relative power of the opposing parties you can appreciate the size of the task that the plasma cosmologists have set for themselves. Trying to win small victories will keep the pot simmering, but you really need dramatic, undeniable, in-your-face, disaster-level evidence. Unprecedentedly massive lightning strikes, simultaneous zapping of all satellites, worldwide aircraft crashes, a new planet splitting from Jupiter -- separately, it may be possible to explain these away. "A massive increase in the solar wind due to the sun unexpectedly ingesting a huge quantity of Dark Matter: we'll need to keep a close eye on this and hope it doesn't morph into a Black Hole." Taken together, some serious rethinking may be stimulated. It is very much to be regretted that the likely tipping point will be a significant number of deaths. Even this may not be sufficient if the deceased are all peasants, but the demise of a few Anointed Ones will prompt an uncharacteristically sincere desire to find correct (as opposed to 'expedient') answers.

In the absence of disaster the future looks pretty sterile. The thing to do is try to communicate with those who have (or will have) political power. Establish a University of Radical Ideas (but not History -- too dangerous) where weird, totally ridiculous ideas like electrically-active plasma in space, expanding Earth geomorphology and electrically-stimulated evolution can be quietly researched without offending 'normal' people. Even this may be too much, because it implies an insufficiently remote possibility that some of these concepts have merit.

Still, one must keep trying -- however futilely -- or acquiesce in the corruption of science.

Even to me, I sound like a stuck gramophone needle, so I'll lay off the philosophical pontificating for a while.

Best wishes for the truth, wherever it is!

[Michael Mozina]

Such a threat is to be destroyed -- not temporised with and certainly not embraced. There is no trick too dirty to be employed when defending one's right to exist.

I would say that your statement is entirely consistent with my experiences, and entirely consistent with the completely unethical and immoral behaviors of so called "professionals" like Tom Bridgman and Brian Koberlein that go out of their way to *misrepresent* historical fact. That's the part that I find most disconcerting. It's one thing to be ignorant of an idea. It's another thing entire to intentionally and willfully *misrepresent* history in some futile attempt to save face. Folks like Bridgman and Koberlein are evidently willing to stoop to any level, including the blatant misrepresentation of facts.

It's also very sad to see that Birkeland and his small team knew more about solar atmospheric physics, and Earth spaceweather over 100 years ago, than LMSAL does to this very day. LMSAL is still avoiding circuit theory like the plague, and pretending that a form of pseudoscience has some relevance in the atmospheric process. That's really sad IMO.

I'd feel quite differently if the mainstream had not given Alfven the Nobel prize for his work on plasma physics, and then turned right around and it ignored his entire life's work as it relates to plasma in space. "Reconnection" is still all the rage, and circuit theory is virtually non existent in the solar atmospheric literature today. There are some rare exceptions of course, but the bulk of astrophysics today is based upon pure pseudoscience, and supernatural gap filler. Their complete and utter lack of understanding of events in space is simply appalling IMO.

I guess I'm a tad more optimistic as it relates to both GR theory, and the possibility of change without a massively devestating event. GR theory might still be useful without all the irrelevant and supernatural extensions like "space expansion" and "dark energy". I'm optimistic that commercial enterprise in space will eventually lead to technologies that are based upon empirical EU/PC principles and that empirical physics will necessarily triumph in that particular field.

Sooner or later the truth must come out. The mainstream cannot deny the value of empirical physics forever. Empirical physics has brought us many advances, and I'm sure that will continue as it relates to space travel.

I may not live to see the changes in astronomy occur in my lifeime, but I'm mystified as to how the mainstream can continue to deny the inevitable for the next 25 or so years, assuming that I live to be at least my father's age.

I have lived long enough to seem the kludge up "big bang" theory with inflation, exotic matter and exotic energy, so I have seen changes occur in astronomy in my lifetime. I'm just not sure that any of those particular changes were actually for the better. I'm also blown away at their resistance to the inclusion of circuit theory as it relates to plasma physics in space. They really do have a massive problem of denial on their hands, and they know it.

[Metryq]

you represent the destruction of the Establishment's concept of civilisation.

James P. Hogan literally and figuratively destroyed the world of mainstream science in Cradle of Saturn. In the novel, the beginning of the end occurs when Jupiter fissions off a new planet, Velikovsky style.

Yes, it is amazing that the mainstream can ignore charge, the most fundamental aspect of all matter.

[Michael Mozina]

I can't help but wonder about the internal (im)moral compromise that takes place within various individuals. Folks like Bridgman and Koberlein didn't originally get into "science" with the express intent of *misrepresenting* it, and to interfere with empirical scientific progress, but that's exactly what they're doing now anyway.

Some of them (Sarah Scoles included) have actually done more harm than good as it relates to the progress of science as it relates to astronomy. When you think about it, there is a moral dilemma in the process for folks like that. There must be a scientific purest in there somewhere that appreciates empirical physical solutions to problems, yet their supernatural biases and preferences keep them from embracing the obvious empirical explanations.

It's just amazing to me that Birkeland fully understood and appreciated the solar atmospheric processes he observed in his model, and that he was able to correctly predict so many important solar physical observations over 100 years ago.

According to my last email from LMSAL, their last solar physics meeting was on the topic of "magnetic reconnection", just another form of pure "pseudoscience' according to the author of MHD theory. They really do not have a clue how the sun heats it's atmosphere, even though Birkeland explained the circuit that powers that process to them in his book over 100 years ago.

About all I can say is that it's really pitiful living in the dark ages of astronomy where 95 percent of the "science" being sold to the public is simply a placeholder term for human ignorance, and the other 5 percent is based upon pure pseudoscience. I can't think of a more frustrating scenario.

As I said, I am at least optimistic that private enterprise in space will begin to change our conceptual understanding of space as soon as they start to develop technologies that take advantage of the circuits in space. I think it's possible that I could see that happen in my lifetime actually.

In the meantime, what the mainstream does not understand about solar physics and space in general is just about 100 percent at the moment, and they seem quite content to wallow around in pure ignorance for the rest of their lives. Sad really.

[Michael Mozina]

Ever the optimist......

I can't help but hope(?) for one or two high public profile "converts" to the EU/PC cause. That might actually cause enough of a public stir to lead to an empirical revolution in astronomy. It would be nice to see an empirical grass roots movement from the younger generation of astronomers, but alas I think the field is too small and too tightly controlled to allow for public rebellion or dissension.

I'm more inclined to believe that public enterprise in space will be the ultimate catalyst of change. Once EU/PC oriented space technology starts to speak for itself in space, the mainstream is going to have to get on board or get left behind.

Think for a moment about the space 'tether" project that NASA experimented with. It's results defied any of their early predictions about the potential amount of electrical current that might flow through the tether. It was far, far, far greater than anything they ever imagined, or designed for.

Someone, particularly someone like Elan Musk is bound to want to "recreate" such experiments and they'll be inclined to want to 'tap into" that electrical power source rather than to deny it's existence altogether. That might happen in my lifetime. We'll see.

[Metryq]

Ever the optimist......

I can't help but hope(?) for one or two high public profile "converts" to the EU/PC cause.

It's ironic that your hope is for some voice of authority—which should mean nothing in science—to make the deciding vote. But there's a constant clash between the scientific method and the prestige racket of capital-S Science. Our problem is the nature within, not the Nature without.

[Michael Mozina]

Ever the optimist......

I can't help but hope(?) for one or two high public profile "converts" to the EU/PC cause.

It's ironic that your hope is for some voice of authority—which should mean nothing in science—to make the deciding vote. But there's a constant clash between the scientific method and the prestige racket of capital-S Science. Our problem is the nature within, not the Nature without.

Well, that's all true of course, but one can still hope.

NASA's tether incident demonstrates that the electrical energy that is available to us to tap into is *far* greater (upwards of 10 times?) than is imagined by the mainstream. That's why their small gauge tether wire got fried in short order.

Private companies won't let that type of a valuable energy resource to go to waste for very long. Once private companies start tapping into it the power supply of the solar system, and they learn to surf the electrical currents, it's going to be really difficult to deny the existence of all that surplus circuit energy.

The change does seem inevitable to me, I'm just not sure how long it's likely to take. If the dark matter fiasco of the past decade is any indication, no amount of money spent, and no number of failed "tests" seem to matter one iota to them. Even when their barionic mass estimation techniques were demonstrated to be a complete joke, and it's been shown that the baryonic mass of every galaxy determines it's spin rate, they simply buried their collective heads in the sand and they just pretended that it doesn't matter. They're stuck in a pure denial at this point as it relates to exotic matter claims. I think only an empirical use of that excess circuit energy is likely to have any influence on them at all.

[Metryq]

NASA's tether incident demonstrates that the electrical energy that is available to us to tap into is *far* greater (upwards of 10 times?) than is imagined by the mainstream.

Imagine the Homer Simpson moments (Doh!):

• • A space elevator endorsed by mainstream "scientists" and built with taxpayer money—despite loud opposition and warnings—becomes the largest lightning rod ever built. BLAM! A little late to say, "I told you so" and we knew about this for over a century?
  
  • Assuming we live so long, a Dyson sphere is built and the Sun immediately snuffs out. A new photosphere blazes on the outside of the construct, leaving all the inner planets in the dark.

[Michael Mozina]

NASA's tether incident demonstrates that the electrical energy that is available to us to tap into is *far* greater (upwards of 10 times?) than is imagined by the mainstream.

Imagine the Homer Simpson moments (Doh!):

• • A space elevator endorsed by mainstream "scientists" and built with taxpayer money—despite loud opposition and warnings—becomes the largest lightning rod ever built. BLAM! A little late to say, "I told you so" and we knew about this for over a century?
  
  • Assuming we live so long, a Dyson sphere is built and the Sun immediately snuffs out. A new photosphere blazes on the outside of the construct, leaving all the inner planets in the dark.

LOL.

The part that kills me at the moment is that I continue to receive emails about the content of the meetings at LMSAL, and it's all based upon pure "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory. Birkeland could easily have explained the solar atmospheric heating process to them, along with all the electrical discharges processes it produces over 100 years ago, yet LMSAL is still groping in the dark with respect to solar physics in the 21st century. Simply depressing.

The whole concept of putting the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse should have been abandoned the moment that Alfven released his double layer paper, and the whole process of "magnetic reconnection" became obsolete and irrelevant according to the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory.

Instead, here we are, several *decades* later, and the mainstream is still basing their understanding of solar physics on pseudoscience. How sad is that?

The only way we're going to explain the sustained heating of coronal loops to millions of degrees for days and weeks on end is to embrace circuit theory as Alfven suggested to them decades ago, and as Birkeland *demonstrated* a hundred plus years ago in his lab. The mainstream astronomy community still refuses to embrace empirical tangible physics, so they play with math formulas that have no actual basis in physical reality as LHC, LUX, PandaX, electron roundness tests, and many other experiments have already demonstrated.

Even their own experiments on "magnetic reconnection" begin and end with *circuits* which ultimately power the entire process. 95 percent of the universe is a total enigma to them, and the five percent the claim to understand is purely FUBAR according to the author of MHD theory. They literally have *zero* correct understanding of anything.

About all they got right was gravity as it works in the solar system, and that's it. Frankly most of our successful space travel to date has been thanks to Newton's formulas, not Einstein's formulas. They haven't progressed much past Newton actually. That's more than 300 years without any real progress at all. Talk about a slow learning curve.

[Michael Mozina]

Consider the complete lack of progress we've seen over the past couple of decades in the LCDM model for a moment.

We've now spent several billion dollars looking for mythical WIMPS and Axions, and other hypothetical forms of matter in the lab, and nothing has been seen that even hints at exotic, long lived "cold dark matter" particles. We've also seen numerous examples of studies that confirm that the mainstream has been systematically and consistently underestimating the amount of normal baryonic matter in various galaxies, including our own.

In almost two decades we've seen *zero* progress in even locating or defining an actual source of "dark energy", let alone physically locating any of it. It's basically a pure form of supernatural dogma on a stick, which is utterly devoid of any empirical physical source or definition. Two decades of "study" haven't changed that.

Those two components make up about 95 percent of the LCDM model, and there's literally been *zero* progress in physically defining their dark stuff in almost two decades!

Inflation isn't "formally" part of the LCDM model, but as the BICEP2 study so dramatically demonstrated, there's been no progress whatsoever on that front either. In fact, Planck data shows hemispheric variations in the background that *defy* Guth's claim about there being a homogeneous mass distribution.

There's literally been no empirical progress at all in two decades. What makes anyone think that this trend of epic billion dollar failure isn't going to continue indefinitely?

[Zyxzevn]

I would even say that many of the theories have been nullified.
Many experiments gave zero or contradictory outcomes.

Instead of retracting the theories, the evidence is pushed away from the theory,
using additional made-up explanations, personal attacks, and bogus-logic,
and the the theory's parameters are adjusted to a level that allows the ignoring of any more counter evidence.

Good theories give good predictions and not new surprises every week.

There have been many nullifications in science that have been ignored:
1) The nullification of space-bending in general relativity.
(The gyroscopes did not work as predicted in space, light near known heavy objects does not bend,
variable constant of gravity).
2) The nullification of the redshift=expansion of quasars.
(Halton Arp, no time delation, redshift in laboratory)
3) The nullification of theories about how galaxies form.
(Stars on the outside are older, constant velocity, halos)

There are many more, but these nullifications need to be studied carefully,
since they scream: "The theory is not correct!".
The Electric Universe Theory, does allow simple explanations for these problems.
The scientists involved want to explore these nullifications.

If science would be evolving, we would not ignore these problems,
but we would know a lot about them.

This says a lot about how modern mainstream science works:
ignore problems, keep scientific fields and theories separate,
create new theories (and fields) to explain the problematic observations,
publish papers about new theories, raise more money.

These problems come from the reductionistic philosophy of science,
that allows scientific fields to be separate,
and the social structure of science,
where your status is is based on promotions and publications.

[Michael Mozina]

These problems come from the reductionistic philosophy of science,
that allows scientific fields to be separate,
and the social structure of science,
where your status is is based on promotions and publications.

When you look at the problem from a purely scientific "knowledge" standpoint, the mainstream has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by embracing empirical physics and EU/PC theory. A full 95 percent of LCDM is "unknown" to them anyway, and the other 5 percent is bogus pseudoscience with math anyway. There's no "knowledge" actually associated with mainstream theory, just placeholder terms for human ignorance for the most part, and their "reconnection" maths require circuit energy to actually make them work in the lab.

Even if the EU/PC community doesn't have all the answers, we certainly have more than 5 percent of the answers, and those answers actually work in the lab, not just on paper.

In terms of prestige and funding however, it's a much scarier proposition.

I guess the trade off ends up being that they're ultimately forced to sell their "scientific soul" to the supernatural dark devil just to keep their funding flowing, and their egos intact. To hell with real physics, they're more interested in protecting their jobs, and that requires them to bury their collective heads in the sand. They're essentially forced to protect their supernatural dogma at all costs, regardless of how many "tests" it fails, or how few real answers they have to offer.

[Sceptical lefty]

I guess the trade off ends up being that they're ultimately forced to sell their "scientific soul" to the supernatural dark devil just to keep their funding flowing, and their egos intact. To hell with real physics, they're more interested in protecting their jobs, and that requires them to bury their collective heads in the sand. They're essentially forced to protect their supernatural dogma at all costs, regardless of how many "tests" it fails, or how few real answers they have to offer.

Yep -- Amen to that!

[kell1990]

Consider the complete lack of progress we've seen over the past couple of decades in the LCDM model for a moment.

We've now spent several billion dollars looking for mythical WIMPS and Axions, and other hypothetical forms of matter in the lab, and nothing has been seen that even hints at exotic, long lived "cold dark matter" particles. We've also seen numerous examples of studies that confirm that the mainstream has been systematically and consistently underestimating the amount of normal baryonic matter in various galaxies, including our own.

In almost two decades we've seen *zero* progress in even locating or defining an actual source of "dark energy", let alone physically locating any of it. It's basically a pure form of supernatural dogma on a stick, which is utterly devoid of any empirical physical source or definition. Two decades of "study" haven't changed that.

Those two components make up about 95 percent of the LCDM model, and there's literally been *zero* progress in physically defining their dark stuff in almost two decades!

Inflation isn't "formally" part of the LCDM model, but as the BICEP2 study so dramatically demonstrated, there's been no progress whatsoever on that front either. In fact, Planck data shows hemispheric variations in the background that *defy* Guth's claim about there being a homogeneous mass distribution.

There's literally been no empirical progress at all in two decades. What makes anyone think that this trend of epic billion dollar failure isn't going to continue indefinitely?

Well said, Michael. The present hypothesis cannot last much longer, for it is full of holes. Anyone who looks at it, forthrightly, sees it. This mumbo-jumbo about "dark matter" and "dark energy" may play well in a comic book, but we are talking about real physics here, and it doesn't play well here.

When no more than 4 % of the mass available in the Universe is supposed to comprise a theory that holds that gravity alone--a function of mass--is supposed to be the central force that holds the planets--and most of the rest of the universe--together, then there is a major problem with the theory. It cannot be so.

Why is this so hard for the scientific community to see this?

For the life of me, I cannot see why this is happening. I do get that there are people whose entire careers are based on upholding the previous miscalculations or mispercepttions or whatever. But they are wrong, and they will not admit it.

Maybe it is going to take a complete blowout of the existing order to fix this problem.

And if that is so, then so be it. Let the blowing out begin, sooner rather than later.