The Abnormal Stagnation of Physics

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: The Abnormal Stagnation of Physics

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:14 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
antosarai wrote:..more than complaints against mainstream sciences?
There is a lot of experimental progress with SAFIRE that completely debunks the mainstream theories.

On ,
you can see that Mainstream astronomy goes wrong with the first star already (the Sun).
That is close to a ZERO prediction rate by the mainstream.

So most "progress" by mainstream astronomy is usually a step towards ignorance.

It's been more than a century since Birkeland explained and even simulated the real scientific reason that the sun's corona is hotter than it's surface, and it's been over 30 years since Alfven's double layer paper made the whole "magnetic reconnection" pseudoscience irrelevant and obsolete. The mainstream has messed up every single aspect of solar physics and astronomy. It's messed up everything related to space, with the possible exception of solar system exploration which is about the only bright spot in an otherwise dismal track record.

Oh well, at least I'm looking forward to the images from New Horizons in early 2019, and the Parker solar probe has promise. At least some part of my tax dollars that were spent on astronomy wasn't completely wasted this year. Maybe next year won't be a total bust in astronomy.

Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:20 pm

Re: The standard model wins again.....

Unread post by Bin-Ra » Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:33 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote:Astronomers had one job, and already screwed up with the nearest star.
I'm always struck by the comparison between a form of real empirical "science" and astronomy today. Imagine for a moment if doctors were running around adamantly claiming that evil unseen "dark" energies were the primary "cause" of illness and disease? What if they spent *billions* of dollars looking for these supposed invisible "evil" energies and found nothing? Suppose they also publicly criticized anyone and everyone who even dared to study or discuss viruses and bacteria or DNA as "crackpots"?
But that IS really the current state of "Medicine" today.
Anyone and everyone who attempts to educate professional medical institutions to real empirical alternatives to their bogus superstitious nonsense is personally attacked, banned and ridiculed.

Except that the virus, bacteria and DNA are the 'unchallengeable' model upon which a network of narrative control operates a negative economy and not the enlightened science you are conditioned to presume true.

And the superstition or magical beliefs are both self-induced and manipulative protection racket.

The wish to put or assign the cause of conflict and disease OUTSIDE ourselves is the fear and belief in the evil INSIDE.
I doubt that you will find you mind ready to consider this unless you are willing to LOOK on what your mind would protect you FROM. 'Mankind in Amnesia' is a condition of displacement and dissociation in MIND - that includes the definitional structures of meaning through which we have and grow the experience of our 'world' - which is never really OUTSIDE being - but only perceived relative to a self-definition.

I am not attacking our freedom to embrace and explore experience (of shared idea or perspective) including a capacity to 'get in our own way' or block our own joy. But the assigning of an oppositional or denying and blocking condition to our own freedom (as mind) is locking our focus (fixating) in an opposition or aversion to an 'evil' we are in fact generating as a way of evading feared responsibility as guilt and consequence.

Investment in illusions does not make them true - but there is no lack of power in anything that is given power or worth-ship as the true, and protected as such.

If you were to research 'germ theory' and uncover the truth about Pasteur (and the personal, social and political context of that time) as compared to Bechamp, and then follow the breadcrumbs... ... ion_1.html

This page looks to be a reasonable find.

The mind-capture of a misidentification is like the phishing ruse - in that the FORM of something can stand for and trigger response as if the REALITY. But meanings are given to perceived and conceived forms and accepted or agreed upon as true - until such status is called into question.

The ideas of virii, bacteria, and fungal microbiota - along with genetic transcription DNA etc are all an exploration in progress. But what happens is that the new perspectives are stuffed into old paradigms - ie: "evil is a superstition and germs are 'real' and so by attacking germs we will eradicate diseases that used to be assigned to evil spirits". This merely swaps evil spirits for 'germs'

War on biota is war on Life - and the discovery of the role of the 'gut' microbiome as inherent and necessary to Life function - immune-response - digestion - consciousness is also an interface with our psychic-emotional being - and our 'pre-conditioning' to a fight-flight state of threat-alarm that is far deeper and greater than our thinking acknowledges - because our thinking is the means by which to keep terror at bay.

The god-king idea is a response to (and cause of) fragmentation.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men, couldn’t put Humpty together again.

Nor are they/we REALLY intending to - because the state of 'separation' is associated with power, protection and control, and any TRUE answer is therefore associated with threat - excepting it 'fits' the filters of the defended state of possession and control - ie weaponised or marketised to private agenda.

The true need is our true purpose and release from a false (self-defeating) purpose, is the field of a natural re-alignment of reintegrative recognition. While the 'kill or be killed' imperative runs as the default response, such a 'purpose' will be 'seen' or assigned to everything in our world - including genes, virii and cosmic conjunctions.

I cannot change another's mind or purpose - but I can extend a gift or witness of my own - and cannot NOT do so.
So the first question is knowing the purpose that is currently active?
Those who know not what they do are of course in full belief they already know and do not need to really look or listen further. In this way a 'past' seems to forever imprint itself on the present into the future. Even though it is not actually here or active in current reality.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Let's recap - Just how stuck are they?

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:28 pm

It was Fritz Zwicky who first coined the term "dark matter" in 1933. Since then, the term has morphed from a term that was originally synonymous with "unidentified matter" into a term that designates a special type of exotic matter. The term UFO is an appropriate topic which comes to mind here. It's clear that lots of things in the sky might be "unidentified flying objects" simply because the observer cannot identify them. On the other hand, the fact they are unidentified by the observer doesn't automatically mean that any of them necessarily come from another planet. Astronomers have jumped to the conclusion that their baryonic mass estimates are 100 percent accurate without a single shred of evidence to support that conclusion, therefore "aliens did it" (exotic matter did it). They've been stuck on that assumption and stuck on that term for 86 years now.

The term "inflation" was coined by Alan Guth in 1980, and it had no historic or scientific precedent whatsoever. It was literally "invented/imagined" from the mind of a single individual and became a scientific "meme" that eventually caught on and became popular. The mainstream has never demonstrated that it actually exists or ever existed in nature, and they've been 'stuck" on that term now for almost 40 years. They're are an almost infinite number of different flavors of metaphysical inflation now, my favorite being "fuzzy inflation". :) No real scientific progress has taken place in forty years in terms of demonstrating the existence of inflation. It was an intellectually bankrupt concept from the day it was first proposed. Note that the original brand proposed by Guth was later demonstrated to be flat out wrong, but that hasn't deterred them from embracing the concept anyway.

The concept of "dark energy" can originally be traced to Einstein's introduction of a non zero constant into GR, but he and everyone else rejected that concept once Hubble's original work on the distance/redshift relationship suggested that the universe might simply be expanding. The concept of a non zero constant in GR, and the term "dark energy" was revived again about 15 years ago based on SN1A data sets which were inconsistent with the original assumption that if redshift is related to expansion the universe should be slowing down over time. In 1998 the term "dark energy" was coined to describe a type of unknown energy which might be capable of accelerating a whole universe. Over the next 20 years, the mainstream has yet to identify a single source of so called "dark energy" and they've been "stuck" on that question for over two decades now.

Nothing has changed in terms of actual "knowledge" on any of these metaphysical assertions even after spending tens of billions of dollars studying such claims, and even after failing miserably in tons of LHC experiments. Not a single advancement has occurred on any of these topics/claims since they were first proposed. In essence, they've all been scientific and intellectual dead ends since the day they were first proposed.

Compare and contrast the complete lack of scientific progress on any of these bogus claims to the scientific progress that we've seen in computer technology, or particle physics theory since 1998, or 1980, or 1933. It's just utterly ridiculous that astronomers have such an "ego" about their bogus claims considering how little progress they've made on any of these absurd metaphysical claims.

First programmable computer. affectionately called the Z1 was created by German Konrad Zuse between 1936 and 1938 just a few years after Fritz Zwicky introduced the term "dark matter" to astronomy. Look how much scientific progress we've experienced in programmable computer technology over the last 80+ years, and how little progress we've seen in "dark matter" theory. Astronomers should be utterly *ashamed* of themselves, not full of pride and arrogance about their beliefs.

The Apple 1 was first introduced in 1976, just a few years before Guth literally "made up' a now falsified math formula to describe inflation in 1980 which was later shown to be flat out wrong. ARPANET was adopted as a standard data transfer protocol in 1983 and the development of the internet followed shortly thereafter. While there has been no serious or significant progress in inflation claims over the past two decades, the personal computer has become thousands of times more powerful during that same period of time, and internet access has also become an integral part of human lives today. I can't even imagine living in a world without the internet and without my smart cell phone, both of which have been advancements in computer technology since the 1980's.

In 1998, Apple introduced the iMac in 'colors". Again, the personal computer of today is thousands of times more powerful and more advanced than the computers they were building in 1998, whereas the term "dark energy" has not improved one iota in all that time. Astronomers haven't even identified a single source of dark energy in the past two decades, let alone shown that it even exists!

Let's face it, astronomy as a field of science is hopelessly stuck and ridiculously stagnant. The terms which are used in astronomy today are intellectually and scientifically bankrupt. They are scientific dead ends. They have no useful or practical value in any other area of science, and they have no useful predictive value whatsoever.

Here's a brief history of particle physics discoveries since the 1930's when the neutron was first discovered: ... iscoveries

On the other than computer science, particle physics research, and every other area of science has advanced *significantly* over the same periods of time, and other areas of science have useful and practical value outside of their original field of science It wouldn't even be possible for instance to build the satellites that we put into space today without computers and advancement in computer technologies and particle physics research. Meanwhile nothing useful runs on "dark energy", inflation or uses "dark matter". :)

Astronomy today, and specifically the LCDM model is the biggest embarrassment in the history of science. It's literally the "dark" sheep of physics. :)

Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:20 pm

Re: The Abnormal Stagnation of Physics

Unread post by Bin-Ra » Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:02 pm

Let's recap - Just how stuck are they?
Unread postby Michael Mozina
I don't see it as any different from anything else in this sense.
Progress is monitored or even seeded for weaponisation and marketisation and so expansions - such as the internet - are provisional seed beds for a more global tool of systemic control. the return of Jobs was as a 'marketing vision'. I don't see progress but rather convergence to a mind capture. The post truth era is a mainstream feed that diverts and engages and conditions the many by manipulative stealth to become corporately owned. This is the same with mainstream science - which is both captured and defended against any change that threatens established power.

So I regard the apparent stuckness of science as a geo-political symptom - but because power politics is actually operating via 'global bodies who set policy' and then incentivize downstream adoption through all kinds of legal, financial and 'trade' agreements - and a captive media in such a way that no matter what your qualifications or proven track record - to not comply is to be excluded. This is not science but politics as to who is in the power to set the narrative. But of course no less who gives power to it by accepting it as true.

I have no doubt that in all fields there are insiders - particularly under the 'national security' umbrella, who are well aware of understandings that are not allowed to be publicly espoused or simply would not find public acceptance.

I think self interest within a managed framework of 'incentives' operates the simplest explanation for the keeping of blinkers and the persistence of scarcities and subjections that operate the flow of wealth, and power - and talent - along accepted channels.

it is increasing difficult to trust anything at face value in a world that targets our minds with the intent to capture and control. Discernment of true communication begins with questioning the terms and phrasing and framing so as to pick up on hidden agenda - even where covering over a bankrupt or unfounded system works by limiting the consciousness to be able to notice or question.
I don't think it is so much an evil intent as an entanglement of investments that become 'too big to fail' because the whole system is a house of cards - that will topple if any real change opens within it. But the idea of science as defining so as to predict and control is inherently separative and divisive as the presumption or wish to possess and wield dominion over - but from OUTSIDE - as a coercive intervention. I see this as the means to lock our mind INSIDE the limitations we seek to impose. So a realignment in the science of uncovering and sharing of the greater understanding of what is already true is reintegrative in finding service to the whole rather than trying to exploit or use it for private agenda - no matter how well presented as 'human progress'.
The idea of progress is itself a presumption that has been deified. Who, how and in what way opens a lot of cultural division. Technology 'progresses' but what FOR? Not all questions are in the domain of science - including what areas receive focus and funding and which do not. How we organise our thought and our society is perhaps the realm of a technocratic control system, or perhaps the free alignment in the true desire of our being. I see a choice here that isn't a good v evil but a true v false - and a false foundation will result in dissonant experience.
So regardless what 'mainstream do or don't, the willingness and curiosity for uncovering a true account is our sanity - as well as a basis for inspired endeavour.

Science is settled and consensual? - then science is dead - or rather the institutional and corporate expressions of science are dead-ending. Thus the flip of the polarised state to its opposite?


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests