The pace of change in astronomy is like molasses

[Metryq]

I'm all for EU/PC, but I have some idea what the mainstreamers are facing. For example, as hard as I try, I'm just not getting Wal Thornhill's dipole gravity. Given time, I may have my moment of clarity and understand the model. However, imagine an establishment astronomer or physicist coming to grips with gravity—as a distinct and separate force of nature—not existing at all; that gravity might be a by-product or secondary effect of charge.

I think that would blow a few minds.

The dark matter/dark energy, redshift-equals-distance stuff is all superficial. Stepping on the thin ice of those problems opens the chasm below in which all of physics changes. So while the evidence for an electric Sun may be extremely compelling, conceding that one point starts the dominoes falling. Out goes the Big Bang, warped space, black holes, the H-R diagram, the age of the universe and stars—it is the biggest reset button imaginable, even though there are ready answers, or at least viable models, ready to step in.

From my own journey, I know that one cannot take in EU/PC all in one bite. There's so much ground to cover because one thing affects something else. One is tempted to take it in small pieces, and try to dovetail each new piece with establishment physics—only that's not possible. One must take it all in without judgment, as though reading a sci-fi book. Accept it all as a given—for the story—because it's only fiction and doesn't matter. Eventually, one comes full circuit, er, circle and there is an "A-ha!" moment where it all makes sense.

So the establishment will resist until it breaks. There is no slow, morphing transition. This is a paradigm shift with no clutch.

[Zyxzevn]

..and the other 5 percent is bogus pseudoscience with math anyway.

There is another point.
Modern scientists are currently fooling themselves of with overly complicated maths.
Maths is supposed to have a direct connection with reality.
A good example is 1+2+3+$+6+7 .. = -1/12 mathematical trick.
Which is pure nonsense, if you look at the reality part.

The physical implications of the maths are usually not understood well.
For example, if my number of particles in a system becomes negative, I know something is wrong/different.
In a semiconductor it can mean that I have no electrons,
but holes (a lack of electrons) that are responsible for the transport of electricity.
These holes have different conductor properties.

Now we can see such similar negative numbers in particle physics,
even imaginary numbers. These implicate that there is something totally different
happening, but such things are simply ignored and the maths just goes on.
The mathematics shows where the model goes wrong. It is not the extension of the same model.
This is the fundamental understanding of maths.

Now we know this we can apply this on modern astronomy:
Black holes show where the mathematical model goes wrong, and is not a "prediction".
The same model can NOT be used.
Even the "Hawkins radiation" is not a prediction, because light can not escape.
It is an indication of different physics, not a prediction.
The same is with the big bang. There is no "beginning" of the big-bang, because it shows
mathematically where the model goes WRONG.
Like when you drop a glass on the floor. The maths show how the glass moves exactly UNTIL
it hits the floor. The floor stops the drop, and the glass breaks apart, in ways not understood before.
So these cases show where general relativity can no longer function.
This all still assumes that the maths of general relativity is correct.

These edge cases show clearly that general relativity can not be applied everywhere.
So now we can consider that there might be something wrong with general relativity in general.
This might be very possible because the creator of Tensor maths was against it.
But considering general relativity is wrong somehow, is considered heresy in physics.
Why is that?

I think it is because relativity is considered "fundamental".
And that is because it describes how the fundamental physical properties of time and space are "created".
So general relativity affects everything.
At least in theory.

In practice we can see a slight difference.
Space does not seem to be affected.
There are many null-experiments that tested the bending of space by gravity, which came out zero.
There are some positive tests, but they can be explained with different models.
And in real science that does not even matter, because null-experiments are the basis of fundamental
theories in science.

Time seems to be affected by gravity, the thunderbolts lecture of Ron Hatch about GPS goes into this.
But we have to create a new model to understand how this works.

So if I look at the actual observations, it appears to me that General Relativity is a huge mistake.

[Metryq]

"Hawkins radiation"

Hawking. Stephen Hawking. Try to get the names right. No offense, Zyxzevn. The guy is a wingnut. And I hate coming across as a "grammar Nazi," but there is a reason behind my spelling fetish.

When I get into debates with Keepers of the Flame, I love to take them off at the knees for getting the names wrong. If they can't even get the scientists' names correct, why should I take their defense of establishment science seriously?

But I agree with you. Math is not "Truth." It is a language for formalized logic, and logic is a way to go wrong with certainty. If a mathematical model does not agree with reality, then the model is wrong.

[Michael Mozina]

I'm all for EU/PC, but I have some idea what the mainstreamers are facing. For example, as hard as I try, I'm just not getting Wal Thornhill's dipole gravity. Given time, I may have my moment of clarity and understand the model. However, imagine an establishment astronomer or physicist coming to grips with gravity—as a distinct and separate force of nature—not existing at all; that gravity might be a by-product or secondary effect of charge.

I think that would blow a few minds.

The dark matter/dark energy, redshift-equals-distance stuff is all superficial. Stepping on the thin ice of those problems opens the chasm below in which all of physics changes. So while the evidence for an electric Sun may be extremely compelling, conceding that one point starts the dominoes falling. Out goes the Big Bang, warped space, black holes, the H-R diagram, the age of the universe and stars—it is the biggest reset button imaginable, even though there are ready answers, or at least viable models, ready to step in.

From my own journey, I know that one cannot take in EU/PC all in one bite. There's so much ground to cover because one thing affects something else. One is tempted to take it in small pieces, and try to dovetail each new piece with establishment physics—only that's not possible. One must take it all in without judgment, as though reading a sci-fi book. Accept it all as a given—for the story—because it's only fiction and doesn't matter. Eventually, one comes full circuit, er, circle and there is an "A-ha!" moment where it all makes sense.

So the establishment will resist until it breaks. There is no slow, morphing transition. This is a paradigm shift with no clutch.

I'd say that your criticisms,and your last sentence in particular are quite valid. The EU/PC umbrella currently contains *many* different, and sometimes self conflicted concepts. For starters, in EU/PC theory, there are at least three different *basic* solar configurations to consider, and multiple variations on each of the three main categories as well. It's not as simple as holding "standard/approved" beliefs.

It took me a long time to digest Alfven's circuit oriented approach to describing events in space, but once you get used to it, it makes a lot of sense. It's certainly more logical that looking at every plasma interaction only through the viewpoint of magnetism.

You're right that there is no "clutch" here which might allow mainstreamers to simply switch gears and jump on board another highly developed cosmology theory. EU/PC theory is still in the "wild wild west" days of it's development, and a lot more funding will be required to make it "whole" and to come to a "consensus" on topic like solar theory.

Even still, when you compare EU/PC theory to LCMD, where 95 percent of the theory is a complete empirical enigma to start with, and the rest of the math requires one to put the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse, they really aren't giving up anything by abandoning LCDM, and they may very well help to "discover" something useful under the EU/PC banner.

After 20 years, not a single one of the LCDM proponents can even so much as name a source of "dark energy" and dark energy makes up most of their claim. The bulk of the rest of LCDM consists of a mythical form of matter that must have a whole host of various "qualities" that are *required* of only one specific cosmology theory. Worse yet, all their best mathematical models of exotic matter were put to the test and they all *failed*, and their baryonic mass estimates have been shown to be flawed in numerous ways.

What's there to give up in terms of real "knowledge"? It's definitely a moral dilemma, not a scientific one.

[Michael Mozina]

So if I look at the actual observations, it appears to me that General Relativity is a huge mistake.

I don't really see GR theory itself as the "problem", anymore than I see "gravity" as the real problem. Einstein taught GR theory without any non-zero constants, except to explain a "static" universe that wouldn't necessarily require anything exotic as that constant. He rejected the notion of infinitely dense objects.

GR theory does not *require* that "space expansion" happens. It mathematically *allows* for that possibility perhaps, but GR theory itself does not "require" that to occur.

Both GR and Newton's formulas simply try to mathematical quantify gravity. I think we can all agree that "gravity", whatever it might be, does exist, and does influence physical things here on Earth. Gravity must be accounted for in any cosmology theory. Whether that's done using GR or Newtons' formulas or some new idea altogether, it still has to happen, and gravity has to be added to the equations that describe spacetime.

GR theory should not be, but often is confused with LCDM. GR theory does *not* require the existence of exotic forms of matter or energy. It does *not* require mass to concentrate itself to a "point" either. These are *assumptions* that are made by astronomers that have never and in most cases could never be demonstrated. They remain "acts of faith", not empirical reality.

GR theory itself is not to blame for black hole theory. Contrary to mainstream dogma, Swartzchild himself went out of his way to *exclude* the possibility of a zero radius object, and Einstein rejected the notion of an infinitely dense object. Don't blame Einstein or GR theory for the sins of the mainstream. That's like blaming Alfven for the mainstream still writing about "pseudoscience" to this day rather than embracing circuit theory. The mainstream even misrepresents Hubble's work. Hubble personally preferred and embraced a *static* universe concept and inelastic scattering as the cause of photon redshift. You'd never know that historical fact by watching a mainstream documentary which almost always erroneously state that "Hubble demonstrated that the universe is expanding".

The mainstream has butchered and kludged Einstein's work, Alfven's work, and Hubble's work. They've blatantly misrepresented their own statements on multiple occasions too. Don't be too hasty about tossing out GR just because it *can be* mathematically abused by LCDM proponents.

[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?

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.

As someone that has been interested in astronomy, and who's studied astronomy since the Apollo missions, I can tell you that the past decade has been particularly hard on LCDM proponents. Not only did they squander billions of dollars/euros searching for a non existent particle to fill the holes of their bad galaxy mass estimates, their "assumption" about SN!A events being "standard candles" has since been shown to be flawed. The hemispheric variations that we observe in Planck data sets also defies Guth's original assertion about inflation causing a homogeneous layout of matter. It's all been called into question by the data we've collected over the past decade.

After billions of dollars spent, and a decades worth of failed observational "tests", there's very little "left standing" in the LCDM model in 2016. It's devolved into an entirely "faith based" form of supernatural oriented "dogma" that defies empirical support.

The fact that they cannot even name a single source of "dark energy" after 20 years should demonstrate conclusively that their "interpretation" of the causes of photon redshift are useless and false.

[Zyxzevn]

...the GR theory itself is not to blame...

I agree, but it is used as a basis for all their maths.
I like to remove the problem by the root.
But let's assume that GR is correct for the part where it seems to work.

Just like I said in my previous post, a glass that falls on the ground can be modelled
with gravity, using Newton or GR maths.
But as soon as the glass touches the ground we have change the model, since
we encounter something that we did not include in the model: the floor/ground.

The same is with GR modelling "black holes" or "big bang", we encounter something
that the model does not include. There is a beginning and an end to our GR-model.
We can imagine what might be there, but as long we have no actual observations,
it is just plain guess work.
And looking at the astronomy, there is a lot of guess work.
But they don't bring it forward as such, instead they claim that it is a solid model.

If you ask any scientist, what was before the big bang, they start to produce all kinds of nonsense.
It has no value, because anything they say exclude any observations of what was actually there.
Neither have they no idea what is in a black hole.

But non of the mainstream scientists actually ask the mathematical sensible question:
is there really a black hole/ was there really a big bang?
That is what the scientists initially were thinking.
That is the only question we should ask, because the GR-model can not reach that far.
If there would be something like a black hole, it would logically follow yet unknown mathematical models.
Not the corrupted mix of the known models that we use today.
They even add the multi-verse theory, just to make the obvious impossible seem possible again.
(because it just happened to be so in this universe).

Now let's look at the middle ground: galaxies.
We can see that GR does not have an answer for the rotation velocity of stars in galaxies,
so the scientists with no knowledge of electromagnetism invented a solution that filled up
their big hole in their theories: dark matter.
In another thread I already stated that adding more matter to the equation makes the rotation velocity
constant. The sling-effect that is necessary to create such speed, is not a stable system.
Galaxies also have very weird properties, like arms and halos, and old stars on the outside.
They can not all be explained with the same gravity increasing dark matter.
This is how children solve problems, not grown up scientists.

It gets even worse with quasars, but that is another story.

So let's look at redshift instead. Closer galaxies show a clear trend between distance
and redshift. While redshift can be caused by the interstellar medium, there is
almost no interest of mainstream scientists to investigate the problems that this
might cause. This scientific breakthrough to create more accurate
measurements is sadly put aside. Current mainstream science wants to
avoid problems by ignoring them.

What I find very interesting is that the galaxies that are furthest away, still look
like normal nearby galaxies. As a big-bang believer I would have 100s of questions about them.
I would really want to know how this is possible within a big-bang model.

Distances are also measured with supernovas.
Something that we do not even know how those really work.
We use a standard candle model to measure their distances, and see a distribution
of light versus time that is assumed to be related with distance as well.
From this data the scientists invented the existence of "dark-energy".
A substance that causes inflation.
Something that is even more elusive than dark matter, if we follow the theory.
This distance effect seems to disappear with a larger sample size, but it is still under discussion in mainstream.

As someone who is used to solid science, on which we based our semiconductor technology,
I see the astronomy as a Swiss cheese. It is full with holes.

But the problem is not that these theories are full with holes,
the main problem is that these holes are mostly ignored and waved away.
And that that reasonable alternatives, which can be tested with cheap equipment,
are pushed away.

But why is this so difficult for mainstream astronomy to see their problems?

I think that is because their careers depend on it. And they have worked all their lives
to get this far into the overly complicated fields of science, that they started to believe the
maths instead of the actual observations.
Now the field is specialized in finding observations that fit the maths, instead of developing
real world models that fit all of the observations.

In the Electric Universe,
"Dark matter" is probably caused by electromagnetic forces.
"Dark energy" is probably caused by interstellar matter.
"Dark holes" are probably electromagnetic generators of some kind.
Star structures are formed with electromagnetic forces, often currents.
Nuclear fusion in stars is initiated with electric currents (not just pressure).
Quasars are objects with different electrical properties that cause increased redshift.
Inflation might be a wrong interpretation of Redshift at all.
The cosmic background radiation, is caused by radiation from birkeland currents and point sources.
Etc.
This means that there is a real-world model that can fit all of the observations,
without the need for mythical particles.

[Michael Mozina]

...the GR theory itself is not to blame...

I agree, but it is used as a basis for all their maths.
I like to remove the problem by the root.
But let's assume that GR is correct for the part where it seems to work.

Just like I said in my previous post, a glass that falls on the ground can be modelled
with gravity, using Newton or GR maths.
But as soon as the glass touches the ground we have change the model, since
we encounter something that we did not include in the model: the floor/ground.

The same is with GR modelling "black holes" or "big bang", we encounter something
that the model does not include. There is a beginning and an end to our GR-model.
We can imagine what might be there, but as long we have no actual observations,
it is just plain guess work.
And looking at the astronomy, there is a lot of guess work.
But they don't bring it forward as such, instead they claim that it is a solid model.

If you ask any scientist, what was before the big bang, they start to produce all kinds of nonsense.
It has no value, because anything they say exclude any observations of what was actually there.
Neither have they no idea what is in a black hole.

But non of the mainstream scientists actually ask the mathematical sensible question:
is there really a black hole/ was there really a big bang?
That is what the scientists initially were thinking.
That is the only question we should ask, because the GR-model can not reach that far.

Actually, I would beg to differ on that specific belief. The whole point of Einstein introducing a non zero constant into the GR formulas was to accommodate a static (potentially eternal/infinite) universe. GR can definitely reach that far. Einstein also rejected the concept of infinitely dense objects too, as do many other scientists, probably due to the Pauli exclusion principle. Contrary to mainstream disinformation, Swartzchild actually went of his way to *exclude* a zero radius object in his model of GR. Again, the fact that a mathematical model *can* be abused mathematically, doesn't mean that we should blame the mathematical model itself. The mainstream still "misuses" MHD theory in 2016, even decades after Alfven's double layer paper. Is that really Alfven's fault? Even poor Edwin Hubble is portrayed by the mainstream as only having one possible opinion about the potential cause of photon redshift, and it's not even the opinion that Hubble personally preferred!

The mainstream is absolutely notorious for misusing the work of various scientists, including Einstein, Hubble and Alfven.

I guess I look at this issue bit differently as it relates to improving EU/PC theory. I would say that Peratt's galaxy formation paper and mathematical model was a really excellent start, but it lacked one important element, specifically the inclusion of gravity into those calculations. Adding such calculations into the models, either via GR or Newton's formulas, would go a long way toward improving his simplified models. I certainly think that GR theory and EU/PC theory are "compatible" in every respect.

I also believe that it's a terrible tactical mistake to give astronomers the GR high ground. GR theory doesn't require any of their LCDM nonsense to be true. GR theory does *not* require "space" to do any magical expansion tricks, even if GR theory allows for that possibility mathematically. GR theory absolutely, positively does *not* require the existence of exotic forms of matter or energy either, but then again, GR doesn't rule out that possibility either.. GR theory does not require that all matter/energy is ever concentrated to a single "point" inside of a zero radius object, but of course one *can* do that (mathematically) with GR. None of that "stuff" is actually an *integral* part of GR theory however, it's just "supernatural dogma" that they added to the GR formulas.

None of those claims is *required* by GR theory, so why should I try to let LCDM proponents ride the coattails of GR theory while introducing dark magic and exotic forms of matter and energy into their claims?

I also think it's a lot more "inviting" to the mainstream if they recognize that they can take their GR skills with them into the EU/PC model, and incorporate those maths into the EU/PC model. There's certainly nothing incompatible between GR and EU/PC theories.

I do tend to agree with your assessment that GR theory has been abused in many ways, most recently with their "gravity wave discovery" claims when they introduced two 'naked black holes" into those claims. The list is virtually endless in terms of the abuse of GR formulas. Then again, they're doing exactly the same thing with Alfven's MHD theory, and kludging it in ways that Alfven publicly disapproved of. It's not really Alfven's fault that they continue to abuse his work, and it's not really Einstein's fault that the mainstream abuses GR theory either.

As someone who is used to solid science, on which we based our semiconductor technology,
I see the astronomy as a Swiss cheese. It is full with holes.

Yes, it's filled with empirical (in the lab) holes to be specific. None of their important cause/effect claims actually work in the lab, just on paper.

But the problem is not that these theories are full with holes,
the main problem is that these holes are mostly ignored and waved away.
And that that reasonable alternatives, which can be tested with cheap equipment,
are pushed away.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's not the fact that their theory has problems that I resent, it's their public attitude toward any other alternatives that I resent.

I guess I see a slightly more sinister motive at work when I watch folks like Tom Bridgman and Brian Koberlein go out of their way to *misrepresent* historical fact. That actually does bother me a lot. It's one thing to be ignorant of the facts. It's another thing entirely to misrepresent those facts intentionally however. I would say that there is an active public attempt to snuff out any rational alternatives by any means necessary, even if that means outright lying to the public about EU/PC models.

Anyone willing to go to those kinds of extremes, has completely abandoned all sense of scientific integrity. That's just scary when so called "professionals" stoop to those levels.

[Zyxzevn]

..It's one thing to be ignorant of the facts. It's another thing entirely to misrepresent those facts intentionally however. I would say that there is an active public attempt to snuff out any rational alternatives by any means necessary, even if that means outright lying to the public about EU/PC models.
..

I found such people in different areas of science as well.
They usually think that it is OK to lie, to push the people in the direction that they think is right.
Additionally there may be motivations to publish a paper (to get a PhD or to get funding),
to sell a product, or to remove competition from the market.
For the last one see the infamous elephant experiment by Edison to get rid of Tesla.

I have personally encountered cases, where lying about science has damaged other people's lives.
I try to teach people within science that lying is not good, nor personal attacks.

[Michael Mozina]

..It's one thing to be ignorant of the facts. It's another thing entirely to misrepresent those facts intentionally however. I would say that there is an active public attempt to snuff out any rational alternatives by any means necessary, even if that means outright lying to the public about EU/PC models.
..

I found such people in different areas of science as well.
They usually think that it is OK to lie, to push the people in the direction that they think is right.
Additionally there may be motivations to publish a paper (to get a PhD or to get funding),
to sell a product, or to remove competition from the market.
For the last one see the infamous elephant experiment by Edison to get rid of Tesla.

I have personally encountered cases, where lying about science has damaged other people's lives.
I try to teach people within science that lying is not good, nor personal attacks.

I suppose you're right that such tactics are pretty common, but it's really the very last line of defense in an otherwise untenable position.

Unfortunately I have found that dishonestly and personal attacks are the two primary means of defense among LCDM supporters. They ultimately have no real empirical physics to offer, and whatever it's faults, EU/PC theory is in fact a pure form of empirical physics, so picking on empirical physics is relatively counter productive in an online debate. They therefore simply "cheat" and attack the messenger in pretty much every post.

I've lost count how many times I've heard the bogus claim that EU/PC theory has no mathematical support, or that it's all about "pretty pictures". The mainstream simply ignores that Birkeland created a working model of the solar atmosphere using circuit theory, and Alfven described the whole universe in terms of circuit theory. The mainstream simply buries their collective heads in the sand, they pretend that Alfven and Peratt didn't exist, and they dishonestly proclaim that there is no math to support EU/PC theory. Never-mind the fact that all three of them wrote entire books on the topics, and all three included tons of mathematical calculations, and they all published various papers too.

Brian Koberlein, Tom Bridgman and Sarah Scoles should be completely and totally ashamed of themselves. I can't imagine a more intellectually dishonest trio of individuals, and unfortunately for the EU/PC community, they all go out of their way to misrepresent EU theory and empirical physics in cyberspace. Simply pitiful. I have no sympathy for them, nor do I have any tolerance for their completely dishonest and highly unethical behaviors. They're intentionally telling lies to unsuspecting children. That really bothers me.

[Zendo]

The old body of science will eventually disease, die and rot just to nurture the growth of EU/PC which is more adapted and alas free from the sickness spread by the current paradigm.

History has shown us time and time again that institutions invested in some belief system are completely resistant to information that is disruptive to the survival of that belief system, even in an institution where they claim to follow rules to avoid that very thing (The scientific method).

I liken it to a dark age propagated by a powerful religious authority. At least now we have free flow of information through the internet, while in the past information was primarily distributed by the church and nobility. As long as they can not completely control the narrative they have no power to stop a new paradigm from taking over eventually. They can however cloud the surface making people having to wade through mountains of abstract noise before coming to the core problems that has been lurking there for soon a hundred years.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: The problem is systemic, and as such it comes as no surprise that change is as slow as molasses, especially when the very beliefs propagated by these institutions are world spanning.

[Metryq]

Some of the standard-bearers for establishment astronomy seem to be fans of the establishment more than fans of science. For example, when the IAU reclassified Pluto as a dwarf planet, many called it a "demotion," as though an inanimate body could lose face and public stature. I agree that there are problems with the IAU's new definitions, but the fans aren't arguing about that. What I hear is, "Pluto will always be a planet to me because that's the way I learned it as a kid."

I suppose these people will also continue to see Titius-Bode as the key to planetary spacing because that's the way they learned it as a kid? Honest students of science understand that our body of knowledge is not static (pardon the pun).

Now the IAU is at it again, cleaning up star names and eliminating multiples in favor of one official designation. Again I hear, "I will always think of it as Alpha Centauri because that's the way I learned it as a kid." In this case, I applaud the IAU's effort, as it eliminates confusion, rather than creating it. Constellations are no longer the stick-figure shapes in the sky, they are broader plots containing many, many more stars. Also, "Alpha Centauri" is more of a number, like calling Earth "Sol 3," while Rigil Kentaurus is a formal and much older name. Maybe I'm not resistant to it because I knew that name—along with Alpha Centauri—since I was a kid. (The house was a library of various kinds of books.)

But all of this is irrelevant. It is just nomenclature. These same people go ballistic if I challenge—let alone question—any of their other sacred cows. (You know them all: Big Bang, black holes, Einstein, etc.) "The math proves it."