Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

[Michael Mozina]

While it's certainly true that the big bang model has been systematically "stripped" of it's religious origins and it's religious significance, the fact remains that it was first proposed by a Priest and it was intended/designed to be congruent with the book of Genesis. Furthermore, it's "popularity" is primarily related to it's religious origins, it's religious acceptance, and it's religious implications.

In other words, if any cosmology theory happens to come into conflict with religious dogma, its harder for the public (and theists inside the scientific community) to accept. That probably at least partially explains why a 'static EU/PC model" of the universe which is based on pure empirical physics is a much harder 'sell' than another metaphysical variation of a big bang model. It was "more acceptable" to simply add a metaphysical violation to the laws of conservation of energy in the form of "dark energy" than it was to abandon the expansion interpretation of redshift in favor of tired light models.

I think that's also a big part of why the LCDM model is effectively unflasifiable dogma at this point.

[Brigit]

As I understand it, the mathemetician George LeMaitre was attempting to develop a theory which took the redshift of light from distant galaxies into account.

From a purely physical point of view, if the Universe is expanding as LeMaitre believed, then perhaps it had to be expanding from somewhere. So he derived the idea that the mass of the Universe was compressed in a single primeval atom from Hubble's work. And this atom he called "the cosmic egg." This is a clear reference to classical Greek myth and poetry, supported by his own direct statement about it.

The Electric Universe is right to point out that Edwin Hubble was non-committal about interpreting redshift as a measurement of space expanding.

At any rate, the Big Bang is not bound to include only the moment of the emergence of all the mass and space of the Universe from a singularity, the cosmic egg. It also describes the continued development of the Universe through undirected physical processes, leading to the spontaneous generation of the galaxies and stars, the planets, and life. It is a purely material explanation.



Materialist philosophers may disagree vigorously about the singularity, and the expansion of the Universe which it is fitted to explain, but it appears to me that they still agree about the rest of the blind physical processes eventually leading to life on earth. It certainly seems like an in-house quarrel between Materialists. After all, how much of the diagram on the left do you actually have to remove to get the Steady State?

[Cargo]

Nonsense. What if the Universe simple Is. And it only moves to and fro. In some places it moves away, and in others it moves towards. The entire body of it is in flux, forever. The most basic common senses are lost on every attempt of showing what the Big Bang is. By pure nature of what we are, in the only three dimensions that we know, if there ever was ever a BB, then all of everything must come from it, in 3 dimensions of Space Reality. We have yet to see the Point of Origin. In fact, as everyone knows from the non-skeptical mainstream, we now live on a 2 dimensional big bang balloon. And when our telescopes get powerful enough, we'll be able to see ourselves from the other side.

[Michael Mozina]

Nonsense. What if the Universe simple Is. And it only moves to and fro. In some places it moves away, and in others it moves towards. The entire body of it is in flux, forever. The most basic common senses are lost on every attempt of showing what the Big Bang is. By pure nature of what we are, in the only three dimensions that we know, if there ever was ever a BB, then all of everything must come from it, in 3 dimensions of Space Reality. We have yet to see the Point of Origin. In fact, as everyone knows from the non-skeptical mainstream, we now live on a 2 dimensional big bang balloon. And when our telescopes get powerful enough, we'll be able to see ourselves from the other side.

It really all comes back to the actual cause of redshift. Whereas Hubble himself embraced the tired light concept in his later years, the mainstream took a completely different path and assumed it was caused by expansion. As the problems with the expansion interpretation multiplied, the BB model deviated further and further away from empirical physics and the laws of physics, and become more of a metaphysical kludge over time.

Astronomy would literally have to remove that entire BB diagram to get back to empirical physics and empirical explanations for observations in space. In the process they'd have to admit that all the metaphysical dogma is utter nonsense and virtually all of their professional reputations would turn to dust. That is why the LCDM model continues to survive as a metaphysical zombie, in spite of being falsified by every new high redshift observation for at least two decades now, and in spite of it's self conflicts with respect to the Hubble constant.

I think however that the JWST program will present astronomers with undeniable evidence that the most distant galaxies look exactly like the closest ones, and there is no evidence for galaxy evolution over time. That's about the only observation that could hope to falsify the BB model, and kill the expansion zombie once and for all.

[Zyxzevn]

Mainstream astronomy is just a modern version of "The Emperor's New Cloths".

[Sceptical lefty]

Modern Cosmology likes to represent itself as the 'Queen of the Sciences.' I believe that it would be better characterised as the 'House Madam of the Sciences,' not merely as a gratuitous insult, but because it appears to have fostered in most other branches of science a lofty disinclination to review favoured theories in the light of accumulating contradictory evidence.
Cosmology rests on certain assumptions that have attained the status of axioms or, to use an appropriately religious term, dogma. These basic assumptions are:
1. Redshift is due, wholly and solely, to speed of recession and distance;
2. Gravity is the dominant force in the universe;
2a. (Corollary) There is NO electricity in space!

It is obligatory for all observations to be interpreted in the light of these unchallengeable assumptions, from which any deviation is viewed as heresy worthy of punishment (metaphorically, so far) by burning at the stake. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the necessary revision would be catastrophic for the scientific Establishment and will be fought to the last breath of every scientist whose career has been founded on the current orthodoxy. Oddly, such scientists hold all the top positions and can decisively affect the careers of anyone they may perceive to be a threat.

The only way in which Plasma Cosmology may realistically be expected to make any headway in the near future is for some form of global catastrophe to make current scientific thought conspicuously wrong. This means solar thunderbolts, or the sudden glowing re-energisation of our gas giants, or a mass convocation of all the world's leading scientists being wiped out by a tsunami, or something similarly improbable.

In the meantime, the Plasma Cosmologists have to keep quietly beavering away and hoping for a lucky break, because the forces of Reaction hold all the high cards.

[Brigit]

by Michael Mozina » Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:46 am

Astronomy would literally have to remove that entire BB diagram to get back to empirical physics and empirical explanations for observations in space.

M. Acheson

So we start here, with plenty of margin space for eternity, Old Ones, and other monstrous speculations.

Thanks Mel!

[Brigit]

by Cargo » Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:42 pm

We have yet to see the Point of Origin. In fact, as everyone knows from the non-skeptical mainstream, we now live on a 2 dimensional big bang balloon. And when our telescopes get powerful enough, we'll be able to see ourselves from the other side.

It brings to mind the old expanding universe illustration of the ant on the surface of a balloon while it is being inflated, but now he is taking a selfies from the other side. Thanks. ...I think. (;

[Michael Mozina]

Modern Cosmology likes to represent itself as the 'Queen of the Sciences.' I believe that it would be better characterised as the 'House Madam of the Sciences,' not merely as a gratuitous insult, but because it appears to have fostered in most other branches of science a lofty disinclination to review favoured theories in the light of accumulating contradictory evidence.
Cosmology rests on certain assumptions that have attained the status of axioms or, to use an appropriately religious term, dogma. These basic assumptions are:
1. Redshift is due, wholly and solely, to speed of recession and distance;
2. Gravity is the dominant force in the universe;
2a. (Corollary) There is NO electricity in space!

It is obligatory for all observations to be interpreted in the light of these unchallengeable assumptions, from which any deviation is viewed as heresy worthy of punishment (metaphorically, so far) by burning at the stake. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the necessary revision would be catastrophic for the scientific Establishment and will be fought to the last breath of every scientist whose career has been founded on the current orthodoxy. Oddly, such scientists hold all the top positions and can decisively affect the careers of anyone they may perceive to be a threat.

The only way in which Plasma Cosmology may realistically be expected to make any headway in the near future is for some form of global catastrophe to make current scientific thought conspicuously wrong. This means solar thunderbolts, or the sudden glowing re-energisation of our gas giants, or a mass convocation of all the world's leading scientists being wiped out by a tsunami, or something similarly improbable.

In the meantime, the Plasma Cosmologists have to keep quietly beavering away and hoping for a lucky break, because the forces of Reaction hold all the high cards.

That's all very true.

Consider the pattern of scientific progress that is found in all other branches of physics for moment in comparison to astronomy.

Over the past few decades, particle physicists have found the Higgs Boson and/or other missing particles in the standard model, and they've tested the standard model and other models very extensively in controlled experiments.

In the field of medicine, we've seen *tremendous* advancements over the last few decades, including treatments for diseases, immunization against diseases and a whole host of drugs to treat various ailments.

In the field of electronics, we've witnessed *incredible* advancements. My personal cell phone has more power and better software than most supercomputers from a few decades ago. Microprocessors have changed our society in fundamental ways, not to mention the creation of the internet, hundred of channels of entertainment, etc.

Meanwhile the BB model of cosmology has produced *nothing* of any personal value to anyone outside of astronomy. The only real 'change' in BB theory occurred in 1998-9 with the introduction of 'dark energy", but it's only use was to save the BB model from falsification. It serves no other purpose whatsoever and decades later, astronomers still cannot even name a single source of the stuff, let alone explain how or why it retains a constant density during expansion. Dark matter" research has produced nothing of value whatsoever in more than 80 years! Even gravitational wave research looks to be as phony as a three dollar bill. We simply have to 'take LIGO's word for it", that gravitational waves actually exist, yet they have no relevance whatsoever to human life on Earth.

About the only "bright spot" related to astronomy as a whole is that it's benefited greatly from our advancements in electronics and engineering so today we have better images of planets, the sun, and space in general. Other than that, cosmology theory has produced *nothing of personal relevance* to anyone. In fact, there is now five+ sigma self-conflict in the Hubble constant between measurements which are based on SN1A events and extimates based Planck data sets. It's predictive value at higher redshifts is absolutely abysmal.

[Zyxzevn]

How mainstream astronomers deal with Electromagnetism is just idiocracy.
It is just clear how most mainstream astronomers do not understand the basics of Electromagnetism.


You can only understand Electromagnetism in 3D.

Instead they are just using the wrong models in the wrong places.
But any criticism of these failures is attacked violently.

Things like frozen magnetic fields and magnetic reconnection (and magnetic field lines) do not exist.
There is no laboratory experiment that ever showed them to exist.
But they are made up concepts for fake explanations.
So they can create magnetic fields out of thin air, figuratively and literally.

In our physical reality, as tested in our laboratories, magnetic fields only exist due to the flow electric currents.
Some currents can be sustained in crystals or superconducting materials.
They behave differently, and do not work in heat.
Magnetic dust crystals in space, or magnetic atoms, will cluster together and radically reduce the magnetic potential.
Electric currents or charged particles will move to reduce the present magnetic field.
A change in a magnetic field is very noticeable and create electric currents that counter the change.


I see errors in alternative theories too, but at least we can talk about it.

[Higgsy]

How mainstream astronomers deal with Electromagnetism is just idiocracy.
It is just clear how most mainstream astronomers do not understand the basics of Electromagnetism.

Do you? If I set you a physics undergraduate problem in electromagnetism do you think you could solve it? Want to try?

[EtherQuestions]

I see errors in alternative theories too, but at least we can talk about it.

I guess that is the big difference. Criticizing the standard model is heresy to many people nowadays, the empirical model for deductive reason has been supplanted by occult-like following because people don't want to embrace objective reasoning anymore in Theoretical Physics/Cosmology.

I blame the way academia is structured, theory and conjecture has been obfuscated now with facts, and people dedicate years of cognitive resources on these theories with motivations not based in objective scientific pursuit and curiosity - but intellectual vanity instead. So criticizing LCDM/BB cosmology (and often relativity even) is registered as an attack on their egos as it is the source of their "intellectual vanity" which they spent years trying to understand.

[EtherQuestions]

How mainstream astronomers deal with Electromagnetism is just idiocracy.
It is just clear how most mainstream astronomers do not understand the basics of Electromagnetism.

Do you? If I set you a physics undergraduate problem in electromagnetism do you think you could solve it? Want to try?

This is a typical Higgsy response, completely irrelevant to the point made to detract attention (Zyxzevn talked about magnetic re-connection and frozen magnetic fields lacking any empirical/logical basis).

ThunderboltsPoster:"Flying 4th dimensional unicorns have no empirical or logical basis, they've never even been observed."

Higgsy:"If I give you an undergraduate calculus question I'll paste in here that involves flying Unicorns colliding along a 4th dimensional geodesic, can you resolve it? You won't show me you can do that? Then shut up talking about unicorns. Unicorns are very real."

[EtherQuestions]

Are these the sort of theories you accept Higgsy?

Blindly.

He thinks Birkeland Currents are entirely not feasible and impossible psuedoscience. But then also blindly and zealously believes/buys plenty of logically and also physically impossible theoretical garbage, displaying no objective reason and empirical/critical thinking whatsoever. I hope someday he changes, but for the moment we have the same ol' Higgsy.

[Higgsy]

How mainstream astronomers deal with Electromagnetism is just idiocracy.
It is just clear how most mainstream astronomers do not understand the basics of Electromagnetism.

Do you? If I set you a physics undergraduate problem in electromagnetism do you think you could solve it? Want to try?

This is a typical Higgsy response, completely irrelevant to the point made to detract attention (Zyxzevn talked about magnetic re-connection and frozen magnetic fields lacking any empirical/logical basis).

No. Zyxzevn said: "It is just clear how most mainstream astronomers do not understand the basics of Electromagnetism." I asked him whether he did and suggested he put his hypothesis to the test. So exactly on point.