Dark Lensing

[jjohnson]

There is both a qualitative and quantitative difference between the statements that "dark stuff, that we can't observe but must be there through inference and statistics, makes up most of the matter and energy in our universe", and "99% of the universe is made up of material in the plasma state of matter".

The difference is attributable to the mind sets of the two camps reaching those conclusions. The first are theoretical physicists, and the astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists who depend on those theoreticians and mathematicians to lead the way. Engineers make up the second group, who depend on practical ideas and knowledge of the real world as they find it and experiment with it in order to understand how it works, if not how the tiny underlying mechanisms which generate forces and matter work.

We need expertise in both approaches, to some extent. Frankly, I'm in the second camp, as I don't see us going anywhere, any time soon, if we don't have a practical understanding of the "laws" of how things operate and interact, and knowledge of "what's really happening". I like the idea of having outrageous new ideas from the first camp (the great "patch the model" form of resourceful inventiveness) but as soon as I find that new ideas aren't working, it's time to discard them or make fundamental changes more in accord with reality.

So far, the electric and plasma physics model passes the tests of plausibility far better then the incomplete gravity-centric model. Remember that theorists and mathematicians confirm their ideas by making sure that the math and the theory align, while engineers confirm their ideas by building stuff and making sure that it does what they say it does. It does no good to call the other camp "wingnuts" or worse, which defensive backbiting we see a lot of. We need each other to have a full conversation. Astronomy today, IMO, needs the healthy, badly needed dose of reality that an electrical engineering approach brings to the table.

Jim

[Jarvamundo]

Your probably spot on JJ, but there will be unconvertibles that have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth, of which will we need to let go of...

IMO the electrical engineers, should never have given all their cool toys to them in the first place.

Its our fault... really...

It just so happens, the great empirical toy builders ('real stuff' people... the EE's)... tweaked onto this and have now created their own journal IEEE Plasma Sciences - Plasma Cosmology... in which they talk about real stuff, that you, me and anyone else out there can see, touch and play with...

But like taking candy from any spoilt baby retard, the kids in imagination land are not, and will not be happy about it, expect kicking, screaming and tantrums from some.... of course most should be inspired by the beauty of 'real things'...

It's time to give us the toys back, it's time for 'uncle Al'fven to show you how to ride...

Empiricism and humility needs to return to cosmology. Essentially we will need to value human calculators less so, or they'll just keep waving wads of virtual universes on graph paper....

We simply wont get hover-boards that way. Thats the plan yeah? Hover-boards for everyone right? I'm in

Return to handing out gold stars to the kids who make things out of wood and wire, not invisible ink and dark crayon... and well get there.

Best,
Alex