by Michael Mozina » Wed Apr 29, 2020 6:54 pm
I think it's worth looking at the tactics which are currently being used to attempt to keep the LCDM model on life support, and to get a handle on it's true "health".
In order to keep the LCDM model from imploding under it's own weight, first and foremost it is absolutely imperative that the mainstream *not* allow for the free exchange of cosmology ideas on the internet. That's why we see astronomy oriented websites like Cosmoquest impose a draconian rule system which separates any dissenting topics into an "against the mainstream" forum, where time limits are then imposed on how long such topics can even be discussed. That's also why EU/PC proponents are routinely and instantly banned from various astronomy based forums. Were there to be a real and free exchange of ideas allowed on astronomy based forums, there's simply no way that the LCDM model would survive open scrutiny and an honest skeptical review. I've literally seen mainstream astronomers talk about "protecting the flock", apparently because they're afraid that empirical wolves might steal their students.
It's also rather obvious that *disinformation* and misinformation about EU/PC models (plural) is a necessary part of keeping the lid on the problem. So called "professionals" like Koberlein actually commit blatant professional fraud by producing "disinformation hit pieces" on the internet where they go out of their way to *misrepresent* the actual scientific facts, such as erroneously claiming that EU solar models predict "no neutrinos", and would necessarily produce a different spectrum than the standard solar model. Links to these disinformation hit pieces are then posted all over the internet any time that the topic is brought up. This is also why we see the mainstream keeping very tight control of WIKI pages, including pages related to EU/PC models. Any changes to WIKI pages to make them more scientifically accurate are instantly deleted and the person making the changes is banned from making any further modifications. Without the intentional *distortion* of the truth, it again would be nearly impossible to keep the LCDM model alive. Only by flat out *misrepresenting* the facts about EU/PC models is it possible to keep the lid on the inevitable growth of empirical alternatives to the LCDM model.
Here's another great example of this kind of blatant disinformation:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... p?t=144610
But...* Radio galaxies are almost universally hosted in elliptical galaxies.
Horse manure:
https://rsaa.anu.edu.au/study/potential ... adio-lobes
Spiral galaxies (like ours) also produce radio waves galore.
Of course the whole hit piece is simply wrong of course, but look at how far they're go to distort the basic facts:
Galactic plasma filaments should be easily detected.
The large electric current through them will cause synchrotron radiation. There is no evidence for this. See the forum posting Cluster-sized diffuse radio waveband synchrotron radiation and its footnote:
....
Galactic plasma filaments are not stable.
The SPLASH simulation started with 2 columns that were 32 grids high and 6 wide (the grids defined the spatial extent of the simulation). The 1983 paper describing the SPLASH simulation does mention that periodic boundary conditions are imposed (this essentially makes the simulated filaments infinite in length). So it is possible that the factor of 10,000 between the filament lengths in the simulation and model is not a factor. However in my (limited) knowledge of plasma physics, long filaments of plasma are inherently unstable.
Not only are these current carrying filaments in space "easily detected", they've also *extremely* stable:
https://www.livescience.com/65653-abell ... ysics.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... tronomers/
While these radio wave emitting filaments mystify LCDM proponents, they're actually "successful predictions" of the EU/PC cosmology model. Not only are they highly visible, they're also highly stable. It's that kind of *blatant* misrepresentation of the facts that I find most annoying. Another great example of this distortion of truth is the constant misinformation about there being no mathematical support of EU/PC theory. Apparently if they haven't bothered to read any of Alfven's mathematical work or Perattt's work or Lerner's work, or Birkeland's work, or Scott's work, it must not exist. Note that with the exception of Koberlein and a few others, this type of disinformation is almost always done "anonymously", without even the benefit of knowing who's actually doing it. What a bunch of frauds and cowards.
Another common tactic of the mainstream is to fixate on what I would call a "focus on minutia" related to EU/PC theory. A great example of this kind of fixation on a trivial issues can be found on ISF. For years they've fixated on an "electric comet" topic, as though disproving, or finding some flaw in that comet model somehow invalidates all of Birkeland's lab work on solar physics, or all of Peratt's work on computer modeling, or all of Alfven's work on cosmology. The mainstream will prattle on endlessly about subtopics that really have little or anything at all to do with the core features of EU/PC cosmological models, like circuit theory or the filamentary processes in plasma predicted by EU/PC theory. By fixating on these types of virtually irrelevant issues, they distract the conversations away from solar physics topics or other topics that are far more important and relevant to determining the validity of EU/PC cosmology models. This is a bit like a "magic trick", where the attention of the observer is distracted away from the actual important features of alternative models.
The other obvious "method" of deflection is pure confirmation bias. There are no real "tests" of the LCDM model because every time it fails one or more of those tests, the results are simply ignored (like dark matter tests), or they're downplayed like the 5+ sigma problems with mainstream Hubble constant problems and the complete lack of any need whatsoever for "dark energy". Another great example is the fact that galaxies do *not* show any signs of evolution over time. Instead we find massive and "mature" galaxies for as far as we can see into spacetime. Such predictive failures are simply swept under the rug. In short, *pure denial* is also an integral part of keeping the LCMD model alive in 2020.
So essentially the primary 'methods" uses to keep the LCDM model on life support are *pure denial*, virtual execution of all heretics, pure disinformation, and petty fixations on irrelevant nonsense. Without the magic tricks, flat out lies, and pure denial, the LCDM model is DOA. It's bad enough that it violates that conservation of energy laws *two different ways*, but it's predictive track record is pitiful, and it's held together by flat out misrepresenting the truth about alternative models.
The problem for the mainstream is that none of these methods are even the tiniest bit "ethical", and they won't save the LCDM model from eventually biting the dust. The best they can do is prolong the inevitable, but the JWST program is going to be very unkind to the LCDM model at high redshift. This kind of unethical behavior is destined to fail over the long haul, but it's reasonably effective in the short term. Unfortunately however, time and technology are catching up to them pretty quickly, and it won't be long before even these highly unethical tactics cannot save the LCDM model forever. The public is catching on, and the technology is catching up to them even faster.
I think it's worth looking at the tactics which are currently being used to attempt to keep the LCDM model on life support, and to get a handle on it's true "health".
In order to keep the LCDM model from imploding under it's own weight, first and foremost it is absolutely imperative that the mainstream *not* allow for the free exchange of cosmology ideas on the internet. That's why we see astronomy oriented websites like Cosmoquest impose a draconian rule system which separates any dissenting topics into an "against the mainstream" forum, where time limits are then imposed on how long such topics can even be discussed. That's also why EU/PC proponents are routinely and instantly banned from various astronomy based forums. Were there to be a real and free exchange of ideas allowed on astronomy based forums, there's simply no way that the LCDM model would survive open scrutiny and an honest skeptical review. I've literally seen mainstream astronomers talk about "protecting the flock", apparently because they're afraid that empirical wolves might steal their students. :)
It's also rather obvious that *disinformation* and misinformation about EU/PC models (plural) is a necessary part of keeping the lid on the problem. So called "professionals" like Koberlein actually commit blatant professional fraud by producing "disinformation hit pieces" on the internet where they go out of their way to *misrepresent* the actual scientific facts, such as erroneously claiming that EU solar models predict "no neutrinos", and would necessarily produce a different spectrum than the standard solar model. Links to these disinformation hit pieces are then posted all over the internet any time that the topic is brought up. This is also why we see the mainstream keeping very tight control of WIKI pages, including pages related to EU/PC models. Any changes to WIKI pages to make them more scientifically accurate are instantly deleted and the person making the changes is banned from making any further modifications. Without the intentional *distortion* of the truth, it again would be nearly impossible to keep the LCDM model alive. Only by flat out *misrepresenting* the facts about EU/PC models is it possible to keep the lid on the inevitable growth of empirical alternatives to the LCDM model.
Here's another great example of this kind of blatant disinformation:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144610
[quote]But...* Radio galaxies are almost universally hosted in elliptical galaxies.[/quote]
Horse manure:
https://rsaa.anu.edu.au/study/potential-projects/understanding-milky-way%E2%80%99s-giant-radio-lobes
Spiral galaxies (like ours) also produce radio waves galore.
Of course the whole hit piece is simply wrong of course, but look at how far they're go to distort the basic facts:
[quote]Galactic plasma filaments should be easily detected.
The large electric current through them will cause synchrotron radiation. There is no evidence for this. See the forum posting Cluster-sized diffuse radio waveband synchrotron radiation and its footnote:
....
Galactic plasma filaments are not stable.
The SPLASH simulation started with 2 columns that were 32 grids high and 6 wide (the grids defined the spatial extent of the simulation). The 1983 paper describing the SPLASH simulation does mention that periodic boundary conditions are imposed (this essentially makes the simulated filaments infinite in length). So it is possible that the factor of 10,000 between the filament lengths in the simulation and model is not a factor. However in my (limited) knowledge of plasma physics, long filaments of plasma are inherently unstable.[/quote]
Not only are these current carrying filaments in space "easily detected", they've also *extremely* stable:
https://www.livescience.com/65653-abell-cluster-radio-bridge-defies-physics.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-extragalactic-strands-mystify-astronomers/
While these radio wave emitting filaments mystify LCDM proponents, they're actually "successful predictions" of the EU/PC cosmology model. Not only are they highly visible, they're also highly stable. It's that kind of *blatant* misrepresentation of the facts that I find most annoying. Another great example of this distortion of truth is the constant misinformation about there being no mathematical support of EU/PC theory. Apparently if they haven't bothered to read any of Alfven's mathematical work or Perattt's work or Lerner's work, or Birkeland's work, or Scott's work, it must not exist. Note that with the exception of Koberlein and a few others, this type of disinformation is almost always done "anonymously", without even the benefit of knowing who's actually doing it. What a bunch of frauds and cowards.
Another common tactic of the mainstream is to fixate on what I would call a "focus on minutia" related to EU/PC theory. A great example of this kind of fixation on a trivial issues can be found on ISF. For years they've fixated on an "electric comet" topic, as though disproving, or finding some flaw in that comet model somehow invalidates all of Birkeland's lab work on solar physics, or all of Peratt's work on computer modeling, or all of Alfven's work on cosmology. The mainstream will prattle on endlessly about subtopics that really have little or anything at all to do with the core features of EU/PC cosmological models, like circuit theory or the filamentary processes in plasma predicted by EU/PC theory. By fixating on these types of virtually irrelevant issues, they distract the conversations away from solar physics topics or other topics that are far more important and relevant to determining the validity of EU/PC cosmology models. This is a bit like a "magic trick", where the attention of the observer is distracted away from the actual important features of alternative models.
The other obvious "method" of deflection is pure confirmation bias. There are no real "tests" of the LCDM model because every time it fails one or more of those tests, the results are simply ignored (like dark matter tests), or they're downplayed like the 5+ sigma problems with mainstream Hubble constant problems and the complete lack of any need whatsoever for "dark energy". Another great example is the fact that galaxies do *not* show any signs of evolution over time. Instead we find massive and "mature" galaxies for as far as we can see into spacetime. Such predictive failures are simply swept under the rug. In short, *pure denial* is also an integral part of keeping the LCMD model alive in 2020.
So essentially the primary 'methods" uses to keep the LCDM model on life support are *pure denial*, virtual execution of all heretics, pure disinformation, and petty fixations on irrelevant nonsense. Without the magic tricks, flat out lies, and pure denial, the LCDM model is DOA. It's bad enough that it violates that conservation of energy laws *two different ways*, but it's predictive track record is pitiful, and it's held together by flat out misrepresenting the truth about alternative models.
The problem for the mainstream is that none of these methods are even the tiniest bit "ethical", and they won't save the LCDM model from eventually biting the dust. The best they can do is prolong the inevitable, but the JWST program is going to be very unkind to the LCDM model at high redshift. This kind of unethical behavior is destined to fail over the long haul, but it's reasonably effective in the short term. Unfortunately however, time and technology are catching up to them pretty quickly, and it won't be long before even these highly unethical tactics cannot save the LCDM model forever. The public is catching on, and the technology is catching up to them even faster. :)