Mainstream cosmology is based on affirming the consequent fallacies

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 110343.htm

A new study, led by a theoretical physicist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), suggests that never-before-observed particles called axions may be the source of unexplained, high-energy X-ray emissions surrounding a group of neutron stars.

This is a "typical" logical fallacy that is used by mainstream astronomers to try to fool the public into believing that there is actual evidence of exotic forms of matter. No such "evidence" actually exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

In this particular case, there is *zero* empirical laboratory evidence that axions even exist in nature, let alone any actual "evidence' that they emit xrays. This a classic example of an "affirming the consequent fallacy". In this case it's based on the observations of x-rays. It's akin to claiming 'x-rays are observed, therefore axions did it." There is no empirical correlation between the observation of x-rays in space and axions. The correlation is simply *assumed*, and then the very same evidence is used to try to support the claim. It's a completely circular argument. It's only one immoral step up from the blatant "bait and switch" routine that mainstream astronomers use to try to support "space expansion" as a cause of redshift when they talk about Doppler shift in relationship to redshift. Doppler shift is caused by *moving objects*, not "space expansion" and "space expansion" has never been shown to actually cause redshift in a real laboratory experiment. It's simply an "assumption" they make, nothing more.

When you really sit and look at the so called "evidence" to support mainstream astronomy claims, they are almost *always* based on some sort of an affirming the consequent fallacy that goes something to the effect "Something (X) is observed in the sky, therefore (dark) Y did it", in the complete absence of any empirical laboratory justification for the existence of (dark) Y, or any evidence that Y is physically capable of causing the observed phenomenon.

The whole expansion model of cosmology is nothing more than a series of affirming the consequent fallacies all stuffed into a single logically fallacious metaphysical house of cards.

[dren]

MM, it's axiomatic that axions cause X-ray emissions around neutron stars. The model dumped into a super duper computer says so.

[Michael Mozina]

MM, it's axiomatic that axions cause X-ray emissions around neutron stars. The model dumped into a super duper computer says so.

True, and that's the core problem with astronomy today.

Almost every single cause/effect claim by mainstream astronomers is axiomatic, or more specifically dogmatic. There's not a single one of their cause/effect assumptions that can be demonstrated in a real laboratory experiment. We know for a fact from empirical experiments that electrical current can generate x-rays and gamma rays, but there is literally no empirical evidence whatsoever that axions even exist, let alone that they emit x-rays.

It's fine to postulate and debate various and different *known* causes as possible explanations for something we observe in space, but it's not even rational to ignore the *known* causes of various observations, in favor of a hypothetical cause, and then try to use an affirming the consequent fallacy to support the hypothetical cause. It's circular feedback loop that doesn't even pass a basic Occum's razor test.

Unfortunately however, that's exactly what astronomers are doing. Rather than embracing empirical physics, they've delved into metaphysical magic and then tried to support the existence of dark magic without a shred of empirical evidence to support any of their claims.

Plasma redshift and moving objects are *known* causes of redshift which do not violate any conservation of energy laws. On the other hand, the whole concept of space expansion begins and ends with a gross violation of the laws of physics. It doesn't even pass a simple Occum's razor test. Ditto with their choice of exotic forms of matter over ordinary forms of matter to explain what amounts to "missing mass". It's the illogical equivelant of simply assuming that any and all unidentified flying objects ever reported must *necessarily* come from another planet. Dark energy is the ultimate example of an affirming the consequent fallacy run amuck. There's zero empirical evidence to support such a claim. It's only value is to save an otherwise falsified assumption that "space expansion" is the (or even a) cause of redshift.

The whole claim about inflation supposedly 'explaining' a flat universe was simply blown out of the water when Roger Penrose mathematically demonstrated that it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that a flat universe happens with inflation rather than without it.

The entire big bang expansion model is a metaphysical house of cards that cannot and does not even accurately predict the observations we see at high redshift, and it's internally self conflicted with respect to it's Hubble constant value. The whole BB model is axiomatic/dogmatic by design, and it is therefore not falsifiable, and therefore it's not even 'science' to begin with. It's just axiomatic dogma.

[dren]

All branches of science seem to have their issues with groupthink, some more so than others. Astronomy/physics seems to be stuck quite deep. It's then magnified by government intervention/funding. The EU is not immune to groupthink, and it's something we really need to be cognizant of. I don't post much hear, I'm primarily reading since this branch of science is relatively new to me. Although I was interested in the past, the common explanations and theories never made much sense. A lot of what I've read posted and linked here makes sense. It is exciting that more and more branches of the sciences are starting to investigate and understand the electric nature of everything.

[Michael Mozina]

All branches of science seem to have their issues with groupthink, some more so than others. Astronomy/physics seems to be stuck quite deep. It's then magnified by government intervention/funding. The EU is not immune to groupthink, and it's something we really need to be cognizant of. I don't post much hear, I'm primarily reading since this branch of science is relatively new to me. Although I was interested in the past, the common explanations and theories never made much sense. A lot of what I've read posted and linked here makes sense. It is exciting that more and more branches of the sciences are starting to investigate and understand the electric nature of everything.

I agree with you. The one thing I've noticed about the EU community compared to mainstream astronomy is that it's infinitely more tolerant of dissent and the discussion of 'unpopular' models than mainstream astronomy. For instance Juergen's externally powered anode solar model is quite popular in this community, but Birkeland's internally powered cathode model has been freely discussed here as well for many years. I think that ability to be tolerant is both necessary for scientific advancement, and it's good for science in general.

[Michael Mozina]

https://news.mit.edu/2021/axions-betelg ... otons-0120

However, when the team looked for expected signatures of axions, in the form of photons in the X-ray band, their search came up empty. Their results rule out the existence of ultralight axions that can interact with photons over a wide range of energies. The findings set new constraints on the particle’s properties that are three times stronger than any previous laboratory-based axion-detecting experiments.

So essentially, in spite of the fact that astronomers begin by simply assuming the existence of axions, and assuming they emit x-rays to supposedly "test" their models, they can't even seem to keep their stories straight in terms of whether or not axions could or could not be within certain energy ranges from one bogus claim to the next. Oy Vey. It's enough to give anyone whiplash and a resulting headache.

[Michael Mozina]

This is a pretty good article about all the *hype" we see in astronomy.

https://www.salon.com/2021/01/24/why-do ... e_partner/

I recall being utterly dismayed and disgusted after my first read through of the original BICEP2 paper when they spent all of two paragraphs supposedly eliminating all other possible causes of the polarized light pattern in question, based upon a *single* unpublished Planck image. It was *obvious* even to an amateur that there was no logical scientific way that they could hope to eliminate all other possible causes of that polarization pattern based on one unpublished Planck image, but that's exactly what they tried to do. They put on a big news conference out their "discovery' *even before* the paper passed peer review. Astronomers were jumping on board talking about Nobel Prizes for finding evidence of inflation and verifying the whole big bang model, only to have the whole claim implode, and quite literally turn to "dust" in a few short months.

Likewise LIGO's methodology with respect to eliminating other possible sources of various GW signals is simply *absurd* in the final analysis, which is why I think their whole claim is likely to implode as more detectors come online, and as sensitivity increases. I personally found nearly a half dozen *blatantly obvious* and very serious methodology problems in my very first reading of their original papers, not to mention their blatant misrepresentation of the facts surrounding the original veto of that very signal with 'high confidence", which LIGO simply *refuses* to explain to this very day. They won't identify the specific hardware and the specific software involved in that veto. They won't explain how or why the automated procedures decided it was a glitch. They won't explain how it was rejected with "high confidence". They won't explain exactly how they decided"to override the veto *by hand* and went from a rejection of that signal with "high confidence" to a five plus sigma certainty of it being a GW event. In fact they intentionally *hid* the very existence of that veto and flat out lied about it's existence when they submitted their paper for peer review, something I've *never* seen before in a published paper.

They hype the hell out of everything in astronomy, including their now infamous bullet cluster fiasco in which they claimed to find 'direct empirical "proof'' of dark matter, in spite of the fact that there is no such a thing as 'proof' in the realm of science. Numerous later studies showed that they *grossly* underestimated the amount of ordinary baryonic mass in galaxies, so all they really "proved" (provided "evidence" for) is that their galaxy mass estimation techniques based on light emission intensity was *horrifically* flawed.

The whole dark energy fiasco was another "hyped" claim. Their original 'predictions' related to redshift patterns being due to expansion were *falsified*, yet instead of reconsidering their explanation of redshift, they simply added 70 percent metaphysical nonsense to the model, and handed out some Nobel Prizes for supposedly 'discovering" a new type of energy, completely devoid of any laboratory support whatsoever. They can't even name a single source of 'dark energy", let alone explain a way to control it in a real laboratory experiment. Today we find that even *with* adding 70 percent metaphysical fudge factor to the their model, it *still* failed to correctly predict the Planck observations. The whole model is now self conflicted with respect to their Hubble constant by over five sigma. Essentially they "discovered" that their model is wrong and *falsified*, and they *still* don't have clue how to fix it.

The amount of "hype" in astronomy is just ridiculous.

[Michael Mozina]

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-extreme-b ... -hair.html

Every so often I'm simply blown away at the absurdity of the mainstream claims, but this one is downright funny.

Specifically, the team studied extremal black holes—holes that are "saturated" with the maximum charge or spin they can possibly carry. They found that there is a quantity that can be constructed from the spacetime curvature at the black hole horizon that is conserved, and measurable by a distant observer. Since this quantity depends on how the black hole was formed, and not just on the three classical attributes, it violates black hole uniqueness.

So in spite of astronomers insistence that electric field are 'impossible' in space, they also talk about 'extreme" black holes that "saturated" with "charge" and/or spin. Even the 'spin' part would result in a homopolar generator, and a saturated charge would simply generate an electric charge. They can't even keep their stories straight anymore.

I also loved this line:

This quantity constitutes "gravitational hair" and potentially measurable by recent and upcoming gravitational wave observatories like LIGO and LISA.

Any bets on LIGO supposedly finding this so called 'hair" in the 04 or 05 run? Mainstream claims just keep getting weirder and more self conflicted by the day. Maximum charge without electric fields, and 'hair' that LIGO can "comb". Oy Vey.