Willful mainstream ignorance: Is there any cure?

[Michael Mozina]

I'm beginning to wonder if there's really any cure for willful ignorance in mainstream astronomy circles. What they do not understand about EU/PC theory could fill volumes, and as Bridgman and Koberlein demonstrate, some of them intentionally go out of their way to spread *misinformation* about empirical physical alternatives to their supernatural creation mythology. Most of the website conversations are tightly controlled, and they tend to crush creative thinking with a iron fist. Case in point:

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/forumdispl ... Mainstream

At the moment, Cosmoquest has every single "against the mainstream" thread shut down. Free speech, and creativity certainly aren't welcome traits there, or anywhere else frankly. When they don't control the website via aggressive moderators, they simply misrepresent the facts to the public. As Koberlein and Bridgman demonstrate so elegantly, they spread such misinformation without any shame at all. Empirical facts are irrelevant to them. In fact they resent anything that pokes holes in their claims, and/or they simply ignore them at will. Just look at every outcome of every "dark matter" test that they've ignored to date?

If one is willing to learn, one can cure ignorance with new information, but only if that information is put to good use. As the saying goes: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink."

In this case we cannot make them drink from the fountain of empirical physics. They have to want to do that all on their own. At the moment however they are like supernatural drug addicts. They're hopelessly addicted to supernatural forms of matter, energy and physical processes that defy even the ability to be "tested" in labs on Earth in many cases. Worse yet, the results of the few tests that they can do in the lab are meaningless to them apparently.

The mainstream currently suffers from an acute case of willful ignorance. Because of this willful ignorance, nothing, no data, no working laboratory physics, and no mathematical model can turn it around because they simply refuse to consider anything that is "against the mainstream".

CDM theory has to be the biggest laboratory flop in the history of physics, yet round and round they go on their never ending denial-go-round with respect to those results.

[Sceptical lefty]

The problem of wilful ignorance has probably been around ever since people developed prejudices. As prejudices are, at root, convenient mental habits that save one from rethinking habituated responses to certain stimuli, prejudices may be presumed to pre-date sentience.

The big, practically insoluble, problem confronting the E.U. advocates may be likened to the problem confronting Lenin when wondering how to overthrow the existing regime in Russia. E.U. theory represents revolution: i.e. the complete overthrow of the existing order.

You may recall that Lenin was a total flop who would probably have died in exiled obscurity, had it not been for a major disaster in which he played virtually no part. This -- crudely -- was Russia's series of military reverses, coupled with serious shortages of staple items among the general populace. The revolution was well under way when Lenin returned (courtesy of the Germans) to take control.

Please let us not get into a debate over the accuracy of my greatly simplified historical assessment. The point of this analogy is to illustrate that E.U. theory does not have the power to batter down the walls of self-interest and mental inertia surrounding the Standard Model. Indeed, like Lenin, they have been effectively exiled (no mention -- let alone, debate -- in any Establishment-controlled information media). To achieve the desired revolutionary outcome you need to keep hammering the inherent weaknesses (inflict military defeats) of the Standard Model (Russia) to the point where the second-rate hangers-on (general populace), who comprise the vast majority of scientists, are prepared to seriously look for alternatives to a conspicuously failing theory. This is the point at which the leaders of the E.U. theorists (Lenin) need to take their metaphorical train to the seat of power and seize control.

You will note that I am addressing this matter in political terms. This is because, whether or not you are willing to admit it, the ultimate goal has a large and critically important political dimension. In an ideal world science would trump politics, but we have to live in the real world where the reverse is the case.

To use another analogy: Science (generally) and Cosmology (in particular) may be seen as a gigantic game of musical chairs. As long as the number of chairs approximately equals the number of scientists dancing around them, all is well. Sure, the odd guy loses out when the music stops, but Hey! -- that's life. However, with the Standard Model (on which so many careers are founded) failing, there are very few chairs compared to the number of dancing scientists. Even the 'heavyweights' are eyeing the remaining chairs with trepidation. The solution is to keep the music going. This way, everyone stays in the game and can preserve the illusion that all is well. The E.U. advocates want to stop the music. Basically they want to initiate a bloodbath as scientists fight for the remaining seats. There are armed guards protecting the D.J. and a pistol is being held to his head. Stopping the music will not be easy.

[Michael Mozina]

I think you're probably right. The mainstream's error is not just an innocent mistake at this point, there is an element of willfulness associated with their ignorance. They simply don't want to even consider any empirical alternatives to their supernatural creation mythology. If they did actually consider alternatives, they'd at least understand the basic principles of EU/PC theory as written about by Alfven and Birkeland, which they obviously don't.

I think you're also correct that it's really the scope of the change that makes this particular change rather overwhelming. It's not like we're suggesting they need to make a minor tweak to their way of thinking. They literally have to let go of their entire conceptual understanding of the universe and start over. That's not an easy thing to do when one's career and prestige are also involved. Nobody likes to admit being wrong, and everyone likes to eat too.

From my skeptical and rather jaded perspective, the LCDM emperor has been wearing invisible clothes for some time now, and it's starting to become almost comical were it not for the public tax money and the incredible amount of time they're wasting on that 95 percent invisible (dark) outfit.

I suspect it could be the introduction of commercial interest in space that could become the catalyst of actual change. Real life space applications of EU principles and energy sources might just force the mainstream's hand and force them to change, but as you said, the mainstream song and dance routine is pretty well protected.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the scope issue. It's not a minor change in thinking to move away from supernatural concepts. It's not a minor way of thinking to prefer empirical alternatives. It's really a massively different way of conceptualizing the entire universe, the cause of the loss of photon momentum, and the nature of spacetime.

What's really sad IMO is how little the mainstream even understands about solar physics. Even something so close to home is virtually a complete enigma to them, and they continue to try to figure out how it works with "pseudoscience" according to Alfven.

Meanwhile Birkeland built a working simulation of the solar atmosphere and Earth's aurora over 100 years ago.

The other wildcard in this melodrama is the internet. It at least levels the playing field a little bit when it comes to the dissemination of information. That factor seems to be on our side as well. The mainstream can't even handle an open one on one online debate with some of us anymore, so they are reduced to virtually killing the messengers at their own hangouts, and hoping nobody hears anything "against the mainstream" from non mainstream sources.

We'll have to see how it plays out, but I sure hope it plays out over the next 25 years so I get to see it happen in my lifetime.

[Zyxzevn]

Nobody likes to admit being wrong

I think there is the problem.
If you are NOT using empirical physics, you will ALWAYS be wrong after some time.

The current mainstream trend has been to focus on the models instead of the observations.
If it were the other way around, we could be discussing what models would fit the observations best.
But instead (in the mainstream) we are discussing observations that do not fit the mainstream model,
and putting them aside.

This problem is not just with astronomy, it is in many branches of science, like biology.
There are so many surprises in biology that were unbelievable 50 years ago.

But to change a model, the system of money and careers that is supporting that model has to be
revised too. There are now many people following careers into "big bang", "gravitational waves",
"Magnetic Reconnection" etc.
All of these will be similar to numerology/ astrology.
What would you do, if you had a PhD in numerology?
Keep the numerology, but make some changes to it.

IMHO, the cure is, not to say that their models are wrong, but to say that
science only works when we start with observations instead of the models.
That is what we should discuss.
The models are approximating reality, not reality itself.
Because our technology advances, we can get better observations of the same phenomena,
and these improved observations might possibly not fit our models.
And this is often the case, especially in astronomy after 100 of years.

The "dark matter" is a great example of that.
Something that scientists do not understand is that, Dark matter is NOT an observation,
it is an model-interpretation of an observation. And these observations are currently being
refined, and show that certain variations of the dark-matter model do not work.

The big bang is something similar. It is only a model based on the red-shift observation of stars.

A totally different problem is that many people simply do not understand the maths behind it.
And they use a twisted version of the maths to "proof" the stuff that they invented.
The Pi=4 discussion (which I am against, see mad theories) is in that sense not much
different from the general relativity discussion.
If people do not understand the maths completely, the discussion becomes an interpretation
of the maths. The famous idea that 1+2+3+4+5+6 = -1/12 is good example of bad maths.
Of course it isn't, but you can define a special + function that acts that way.
If we look at general relativity, Steve Crothers shows how the complex Tensor maths
has been used in a wrong way.

I notice that people find it harder to admit their maths problems than the problems with observations.

This problem might be solved with computer simulations.
A computer simulation will require to put some of the theory into practical maths.

There is a cure

Yes. In the programming industry we have no problem with people using bad models or bad maths.
These people produce bad programs, and make less money.
Luckily many of the programmers listen to other programmers to how they can
improve their models and maths. Especially in open-source software.
So there is a push to educate yourself and others.

There are many many different programs that are still functional.
Also many programs look alike, because they work with similar technologies and use similar models.
They also respect older technologies and older programs.
They often have solutions that still can be useful today.
And if someone would make a huge improvement today, all other programmers would
like to understand that improvement and add their own version.
If someone has made a huge mistake, everyone wants to know about it too,
and change their programs if necessary.

So the problem is really in the world of science, not in the world of programming.

So what are the requirements for science to do the same:
1. Open source = Open science.
Open and free available documentation, including the process and models behind it.
2. Bug report = Open reports and side research.
We need to know when something works and when not.
3. Running Program = Observation.
Does it work in practice?
Is it useful?
4. Continuous improvement = Adaption.
Can we make it better?
5. Open Source Forking = Allow alternatives.
Other models are fine too, as long as they work.
We do not need to criticize other models.
Your model needs to be better, for the task that you use it for.
6. New technologies = New science models.
You can try anything and see if it works.
7. Allow complaints about problems.
We learn from mistakes and problems, even if we can not solve them now.


In science we only have a few theories with a fixed set of models,
for which you have to pay to get more information about the actual research.
But you are (almost) never allowed to see the actual details and data.
You also have to follow a full education to understand them.
You are not allowed to improve them or make your own,
unless you spend many years doing work for someone else,
who is also against any change in any model.

In the programming world we have many programs that you
can download for free. And there are free tools with which you can make
improve them or make your own, after downloading the free open source.
You are even encouraged to do that.

[Sceptical lefty]

We'll have to see how it plays out, but I sure hope it plays out over the next 25 years so I get to see it happen in my lifetime.

You have my shared sympathy. 25 years is about all I can expect, too.

I derive some encouragement from my observation that the Standard Model must eventually collapse under the weight of its accumulated absurdities. What I dread is a Frankenstein creation cobbled together from the wreckage.

To prevent this the foundations of the Standard must be destroyed. These include:
1. The notion that redshift is solely attributable to speed of recession and distance;
2. The notion that the fundamental incompatibility of Quantum Theory and General Relativity don't really matter;
3. The notion that gravity is the only (non-Dark) force that matters on cosmological scales;
4. The elimination of G.U.F.F.* (Grand Unified Fudge Factor) as an acceptable method of bridging the chasm between where Science finds itself and where it needs to be.

To achieve the ascendancy of E.U. theory in the near future will require the elimination (virtual execution) of the existing scientific Establishment. The Russian Revolution analogy holds, here. I cannot see any sign that this is about to happen, so I just hope that my grandchildren may see the eventual vindication of the E.U., even as they swallow dubious doctrines about something else.

*An infernal amalgam of cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy, combined and applied in whatever quantities and manner deliver the required result: the Holy Grail of theorists and the bane of empiricists.